[Koha-devel] Signing-off a patch for a customer

[Marc Balmer]

Am 28.05.12 17:19, schrieb Fischer, Katrin:
> Hi Paul and all,
> 
> I agree with Chris N. here. Every exception we make, makes it harder to
> explain and stick to our rules.
> I tinkk every patch should at least have 2 parties involved.

But, if the patch we speak about, has been tested at the library, that
makes it already two involved parties, I would say.

Or am I missing sth here?

- Marc

> 
> Katrin
> 
> 
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: koha-devel-bounces at lists.koha-community.org im Auftrag von Chris
> Nighswonger
> Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 17:03
> An: Paul Poulain
> Cc: koha-devel at lists.koha-community.org
> Betreff: Re: [Koha-devel] Signing-off a patch for a customer
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Paul Poulain
> <paul.poulain at biblibre.com>wrote:
> 
>> Hello koha-devel,
>>
>> I just pushed a follow-up for bug 6858. If you look at the patch, you'll
>> see that the author is from BibLibre, as well as the sign-offer. But if
>> you look more carefully on the patch comments, you may understand that
>> Stephane Delaye has signed-off "in the name of the library". We're
>> facing here a case where the library don't want/can't sign-off their
>> patch (they don't know how to do it and don't want to bother with doing
>> it. They just said this patch worked for them)
>>
>> At BibLibre, we have 3 project managers: Stéphane Delaye / Gaetan
>> Boisson / François Charbonnier. They are librarians and are doing the
>> glue between the library our customer and our developers.
>> they know how to sign-off a patch.
>>
>> I want, in this mail, request that those 3 ppl from BibLibre (and only
>> them) can be sign-offers for patches written by another BibLibre
>> developer, once the library has confirmed it works.
>>
>> I propose that we define a standard message, something like
>> Signed-off-by: Delaye Stephane <stephane.delaye at biblibre.com>
>>  patch validated by <LIBRARY NAME>, signed-off in their name
>>
>> Can I have your agreement with this idea ?
>> (of course, in case another support provider has the same kind of
>> situation, this would also be applicable. It's not something I want for
>> BibLibre only)
> 
> 
> A look over the history of that bug seems to indicate that Biblibre has
> been responsible for:
> 
> 1. Creation of the code
> 2. Sign-off of the code
> 3. QA of the code
> 
> I am not comfortable with this situation. It is not particularly a
> "Biblibre" thing with me, but a matter of principle. And it is occurring
> with greater frequency.
> 
> I believe we need to stick with the principles we agreed to. This patch
> clearly missed the "approval" of a dis-interested party in its initial
> commit to master. (Perhaps Katrin mentioned this at some point, but I'm not
> sure.) We need to take up the slack here and get a disinterested QA on this
> followup prior to pushing it to master.
> 
> I am of the strong opinion that going forward we need to maintain a more
> strict compliance with this principle of dis-interested sign-off/QA.
> Clearly at times one or the other may be impractical, however, one *or* the
> other is always possible. Perhaps it may not fit the desired schedule of
> the vendor, but violation of this principle is the first step down a
> slippery slope.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/