[Koha-devel] QAing patches

[Fischer, Katrin]

Hi all, 

I would like to add some thoughts to the discussion.

For me 'neutral' or 'different company' has another dimension. As we all have learned (sometimes painfully) - libraries don't work the same everywhere. We have different workflows and sometimes different ideas about how things are supposed to work.

And for me that's another reason why I think a different set of eyes on each patch or feature is good and really needed. It helps us to not concentrate on the view of one library or a group of libraries, but see the bigger picture.

So my request for having someone else looking at patches from outside the scope of sponsoring library and developing company is not about trust - it's about getting another perspective.

Katrin 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: koha-devel-bounces at lists.koha-community.org [mailto:koha-devel-
> bounces at lists.koha-community.org] On Behalf Of Paul Poulain
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2012 3:50 PM
> To: koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> Subject: Re: [Koha-devel] QAing patches
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>