[Koha-devel] Patch approval workflow

[Ian Walls]

Speaking for ByWater on the below mentioned practice:

We do the internal sign-offs as a way to spot-check our work going out to
the community.  We do not mean for this to serve as "the signoff" for any of
our work.  We just want to be sure what we produce is of the highest quality
we can muster BEFORE it goes out.  Signoffs from other parties are
encouraged and desired.

If this seems like an inefficient or counterproductive practice to anyone,
please let us know.  The end goal is, as always, to make Koha the best it
can be, and we're flexible on how we go about doing that if there's good
reason to modify our process.

Thank you all, and let's keep the patches rolling!


-Ian

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 3:59 AM, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain at biblibre.com>wrote:

> Le 31/03/2011 09:31, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
> > http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow:
> Great!
> > I made a few small adjustments, hopefully improvements:
> >
> > Patch signer should not be patch writer. Preferably, patch writer and
> patch signer should not be from the same company or institution.
> Preferably, you're right. And I think it's the RM that must decide
> wether a sign-off is OK or no. Some patches are obviously simple and one
> sign-off is enough. And some patches are big, important, with structural
> consequences. In this case, even one sign-off may not be enough. So, the
> RM may include a signed-off-by-the-same-company patch without problem
> (many patches from bywatersolutions are going this way those days), and
> sometimes he may have put back the patch status to "pls sign-off",
> asking for another sign-off, even if he had already one from a different
> company.
> > Bug closer should not be patch writer. Preferably, bug closer should not
> be patch signer too.
> I've already expressed my feeling here: for us (BibLibre), the patch
> writer is not the real reporter: the reporter is a librarian, that
> reported the bug on our support platform. And when we submit a patch, it
> means we've tested and applied it on the library server. So when we mark
> "resolved", it's because the library reported it was OK [1]. So I think
> self-marking fixed is OK.
>
> [1] well, to speak frankly: we ask libraries to close bugs on our
> -french speaking- support platform, but none of them does. But when we
> mark a bug fixed, if it is not, they never forget to reopen it ;-)
>
> --
> Paul POULAIN
> http://www.biblibre.com
> Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
> Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>



-- 
Ian Walls
Lead Development Specialist
ByWater Solutions
Phone # (888) 900-8944
http://bywatersolutions.com
ian.walls at bywatersolutions.com
Twitter: @sekjal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20110331/55f6d551/attachment.htm>