[Koha-devel] Patch approval workflow

[Paul Poulain]

Le 31/03/2011 16:12, Ian Walls a écrit :
> 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!
I'm perfectly OK with self-company signed patches (with BibLibre
developers being more than 10, it means it will happends regularly). I
just think that some patches are "heavy" and should be tested by many
ppl (like a MARC21 and a UNIMARC tester, or an english and a non-english
tester). And it's the RM who should be the one with the power to say
"ok, it's signed, but I need another signoff !"
just FYI : chris already told me that the deep changes we made on circ
rules will need a sign-off by someone external to BibLibre. No problem
with this !

/me always optimistic, so hopes that after next week hackfest in
Marseille, we will have dealed with most of the late stuff (we tend to
deal with new stuff quickly. It's the old stuff that stays pending...),
then will be able to have a fluent workflow without any
pending-for-no-reason bugzilla entry.

-- 
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08