[Koha-devel] Release Manager 3.6

[Nicole Engard]

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:41 AM, Bob Birchall <bob at calyx.net.au> wrote:
> How about this approach:
> - we designate a very small number of companies with the capacity and track
> record of major feature integration, as being authorised to short cut
> community QA before integrating major features (only);
> - minor features and bug fixes remain subject to the existing work flow;
> - I'm thinking ByWater, Biblibre and Catalyst at this stage - others can
> argue their own case;
> - such features must be integrated at least two months before a scheduled
> release, and assistance provided to community members to perform testing;
> - if significant problems are detected that are not rectified n weeks (2?)
> before release date, the feature will be withdrawn.

I don't like this (even if ByWater is included above).  Who decides
who's special? Why do we need someone to be 'special'? The rules
should apply to everyone regardless of who they are.  That's why it
was so much fun for me to mark one of Chris's patches as failing QA :)
... using your model his patch would have made it in to Koha and
wouldn't have done what it expected. Not to pick on Chris, but the
point is that no one should be exempt and no one is flawless.

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Owen Leonard <oleonard at myacpl.org> wrote:
> Part of becoming more "agile," if we must use that term, is to learn
> to keep our contributions manageable and feature-specific.

I agree with Owen.  We need to make things manageable.

Nicole