[Koha-devel] Proposal for Assistance with QA Testing for Koha 3.6

[Stephen Wills]

+1, QAM is not the same as carry the yolk alone!

On Aug 2, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Ian Walls wrote:

> Dear Community,
>
>
> As you are likely aware, I am the elected Quality Assurance Manager  
> for the 3.6 release.  As you may also be aware, there are currently  
> 96 patches in Bugzilla that are signed off and ready for QA testing  
> (at the time of this writing).  My goal for my term as QAM was to  
> keep this list under 10, but as we can see, that's not the current  
> state of things.
>
> I do not want to become a bottleneck against good code getting into  
> Koha.  Quality Assurance is by it's nature a painstaking process,  
> especially with more complex patches, to ensure that there are no  
> regressions of functionality, or massive, unexpected shifts in  
> default behavior.  Often, numerous configurations of data need to  
> checked against, to make sure fixing a bug for one possible setup  
> doesn't cause a new bug in another.  So far, we've not had to pull  
> any code from master due to a regression, so it seems this process  
> is working.  But, that said, we've still got nearly a hundred  
> patches waiting in the queue.
>
> Paul Poulain has offered to assist me with QA for the remainder of  
> the Koha 3.6 release cycle.  He's got the hours to dedicate towards  
> this, and can help put some of these patches through their paces.   
> While anyone can test any patch that's been published (and everyone  
> is encouraged to do so), Paul is asking for the additional power to  
> mark the patches he's tested as "Passed QA" if they do indeed pass  
> his tests.  Here are the exact terms of the proposal:
>
> a) he would not mark any patch he himself has written as Passed QA
> b) any patch written by BibLibre would need a signoff from another,  
> external person before he'd test it
> c) he would start with the patches that have been waiting the longest
> d) the QAM and RM could reject any "Passed QA" patch if they feel  
> it's not sufficient for whatever reason (which would need to be  
> noted in the bug report)
>
> I do not feel that I necessarily have the right to transfer the  
> "mark patches as Passed QA" power over to another person without the  
> community's consent.  So, I bring this to the group.  Is this an  
> acceptable proposal?  Does the QAM have the right to "deputize"  
> community members and transfer this particular power, or does the  
> community need to vote on it?  Are there any aspects of the issue  
> that I'm missing?
>
> Thanks for your consideration and attention on this matter,
>
>
>
> -Ian
>
>
>
> -- 
> Ian Walls
> Lead Development Specialist
> ByWater Solutions
> Phone # (888) 900-8944
> http://bywatersolutions.com
> ian.walls at bywatersolutions.com
> Twitter: @sekjal
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20110802/d82cabb9/attachment.htm>