[Koha-devel] QAing patches

[Paul Poulain]

Le 04/07/2012 14:25, Marcel de Rooy a écrit :
> Hi Paul, all
>> Seeing if it can break something requires a lot of experience with Koha code source. When I QA code from BibLibre, I'm not biaised because it comes from BibLibre.
> Are you sure? Just looking at your statement from outside BibLibre, I would say that there could be conflicting interests here.. (With all due respect !)
mmm... maybe I'm using a wrong word here. What I wanted to say is I QA
BibLibre patch exactly the same way as a non-BibLibre patch : if I think
it should not be pushed, I won't push it, BibLibre or not BibLibre. The
question "does it break something" is related to my long-standing
experience on Koha, that let me find/know caveats. Not that I'm always
right, I made mistakes, but I think there's no difference between
BibLibre and non BibLibre patches.

>> Should we, then, give a grant to some specific, experienced & trustable ppl to QA ? 
> Isn't that already the case? Or do you feel that we should extend the QA team? 
Well, my feeling is that we could officially add Katrin to the QA team,
because she make a lot of very good QA comments. But that's another
topic ;-)

What I wanted to say here is that the community could recognize the fact
that I'm trustable/wise/experienced enough to QA any patch.
I wouldn't object if chris_c had the same possibility for catalyst
patches -and wanted to join QA team-.
(Maybe the problem here is that, atm, I'm the only one who is in a
position where this specific permission is applicable/useful/needed)

>> For example, the eclipse foundation has "contributors" and "committers". 
> From first glance, I suspect that we compare two non-similar workflows.
agreed. It was not to use the same workflow, just an example.
-- 
Paul POULAIN
http://www.biblibre.com
Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc
Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08