[Koha-devel] Copy of e-mail I sent Chris

[John Brice]

I sent Chris the following e-mail today and he asked that I post it to 
the full community.

John Brice
Meadville Public Library

Dear Chris:
>
>  Hi!  John Brice here from Meadville.
>
>    I usually just lurk about these mail lists but I thought I would give you
>  my two cents worth concerning the sign off process.
>
>  First, we seem to have three issues that I can identify.
>
>  Issue 1. There is a large number of submissions (140 at last count) that
>  need to be signed off on.
>
>  Issue 2.  A small number of  the patches our very specific and are difficult
>  to test unless one is running the exact same configuration.
>
>  Issue 3.  Quality assurance is becoming more and more critical  especially
>  considering that the installed base is getting bigger.  One small problem in
>  the code can now effect 1,000's of libraries across the world.
>
>  Really, to solve the above three issues you have to identify the most
>  important issue and then work backwards from their to come up with the
>  proper solution from there.
>
>  I personally believe that the Issue 3 Quality Assurance is the most
>  important.  There are just too many libraries out there now relying on Koha,
>  in a production setting, to risk putting in code that has not been properly
>  vetted.  The bottom line is that only a low percentage of libraries will
>  benefit from a new feature while everyone benefits from clean code.
>
>  Having said that how do we fix issue One and Two?  Well Issue one seems to
>  be a manpower issue.  While, Issue two is a very difficult technical issue
>  concerning system configuration.
>
>  The best way to solve Issue Two is to have a waiver process for certain
>  developers.  Certain developers associated with a large percentage of code
>  development could, in certain specific circumstances, request a waiver from the
>  traditional sign off process.  The reasons for the waiver would have to be
>  very specific, such as it would be too difficult too test outside of a
>  production server.   The waivers would have to be tracked (yeah another
>  thing for the database to keep track of) and if there is any problem at all
>  the entity granted the waiver would have to be responsible for all
>  subsequent revisions and fixes.  The waiver is not the solution to reduce
>  the large number of outstanding issues it is a simple means to add code to
>  Koha that is too difficult to test outside of a very specific configuration.
>
>  So then we come to the big Issue Number 1 the large amount of checks that
>  have to be made.  This is the problem with open source we have to rely on
>  the good graces of everyone involved in order to move the project forward.
>    This means that everyone has to set aside their own personal projects and
>  do stuff for the good of the overall Koha project.  That is a tough sell, but frankly, it
>  is one that is needed.  The best way to get this logjam cleared up is to
>  have someone be put in charge of the issue and then that person start
>  writing e-mails and so forth to encourage cajole or outright bang heads to
>  get the sign-offs that are required.  If all the developers in Koha would
>  sign off on one outstanding issue a week we could have the problem resolved
>  in three to four months.  Someone needs to keep hammering away at this issue
>  and I don't think it should be you Chris.
>
>  Just some thoughts from a librarian stuck in the Allegheny National Forest.
>
>  John Brice