[Koha-devel] Proposed QA Enhancements

[Paul Poulain]

Le 21/05/2012 19:38, Chris Nighswonger a écrit :
> http://wiki.koha-community.org/wiki/Bug-enhancement-patch_Workflow#Steps
> 
> 1. I propose that we modify step 5 to read:
> 
> "The patch is checked and signed-off by the QA team member. Then the bug
> status is set to Passed QA"
Something I made during the 3.8 release was to add many things to the
coding guidelines. My preference goes to QA rules that are clearly
defined and explained. That will help QAing a lot, and "anyone" with a
good Koha experience, and some time to dedicate should/could do it.

I agree that we *must* have a functional AND a technical review of every
patch, the 2 steps are different.

> This will ensure that we have clarity that the patch was, indeed,
> touched by a member of the QA team, as well as increasing the accuracy
> of QA stats in git.
Most QA is done in bugzilla only: when a patch is QAed, it's not
signed-off & git bz attach most of the time.
(that's also why your numbers below are meaningless : Ian has not made
only 25 QA or joubu 5 ! OTOH, when I, as RM, push a patch, I always add
my signature, that can be as RM or QA)

> 2. I propose that the RM be the QA of last resort. At present the stats
> show that the RM is doing the majority of the QA'ing.
As I just wrote, I don't do the majority of QA, (even if I agree I do a lot)

As I've said previously, as RM, I dedicate more than half of my time to
this task.
I think that we could have someone dedicated full time to QA and someone
dedicated full time to sign-off. And until we won't... we will face this
kind of trouble. Our workflow is good, but require a large effort we
collectively fail to "pay" until now.

[ off-topic: BibLibre dedicate a lot of resources to Koha (see
statistics on chris_c blog. A lot being "self-sponsored") and can't
dedicate more. I think everybody should ask himself seriously "What did
I do for Koha last week, what will I do next week ?" ]

> "Last resort" is a
> condition evoked by all members of the current QA team acknowledging
> that no one among them has the time, etc. to do QA on a particular patch
> the RM feels needs to be pushed OR by a bug remaining in the "Signed
> Off" status beyond a fixed time period of four weeks. 
+1 (and it's already done that way in fact : as member of the QA team, I
always order by date when I QA, and start by the oldest patches. I've
suggested to change the default order to date, but the idea has not been
approved)


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