[Koha-devel] [QA] QAing and signing off

[Chris Nighswonger]

+1 for QA signoffs; it seems a trivial addition.

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Jared Camins-Esakov <
jcamins at cpbibliography.com> wrote:

>
>  > Until now, we said the QA goal was to be concentrated on code quality,
>> > testing the feature was made 'somewhere else'. (that's why I also think
>> > we could have QA before or after signoff, that's 2 independant things.
>> > But I don't see how to achieve that with bugzilla, so I never suggested
>> > the idea)
>> >
>> Hmm I always thought  the first sign off was just testing the patch
>> works, QA would test for code quality, regressions, etc. At least
>> that's what I expected when I was doing RM. It sounds like it changed
>> a bit while Paul was RM, and that is fine after all it was his
>> responsibility to decide how he wanted to run his releases.
>> We probably need to await Jared awaking, and clarifying exactly what
>> he expects from QA for the 3.12 release, since that's what we elected
>> him for :)
>>
>
> From my point of view, the reason we elected the six people we did for the
> QA team is that we know that those six people understand the big picture of
> Koha better than other developers, and would be able to identify places
> where regressions are likely. Code quality is important, but less important
> than the end user experience, which would be much more marred by the
> presence of a regression than the presence of a backtick. So it is my
> expectation that when QAing patches our QA team is doing at least some
> testing (for the most part I believe this has been done throughout the 3.12
> cycle; Marcel, an example of what I'm looking for can be found on
> http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=8206 where you
> spotted a number of problems in the course of QA). So I don't see that this
> requirement adds a significant burden on the QA team. After all, you're
> already applying the patch. On the other hand, the presence of the
> Signed-off-by line from the QA team *greatly* reduces the burden on me, and
> since I have had to push 114 patches (plus merges) *by myself* since
> October 30 (and reviewed a fair number more), I think the tradeoff is worth
> it. As an example of what I'm talking about, there was one bug where the
> author repeatedly marked it "Passed QA" himself, without anyone else
> looking at the code or testing it. In order to figure out what happened, I
> had to wade through 67 comments on the bug and several pages worth of
> history, just to find that no, I hadn't missed the QA team's approval, in
> fact the patches never passed QA. There can be no question that I am the
> bottleneck for code getting into Koha, and the day that bug wasted was
> taken from my review of bug 7067, which probably would have applied had I
> been able to use that time to review it.
>
> Regards,
> Jared
>
> --
> Jared Camins-Esakov
> Bibliographer, C & P Bibliography Services, LLC
> (phone) +1 (917) 727-3445
> (e-mail) jcamins at cpbibliography.com
> (web) http://www.cpbibliography.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.koha-community.org/pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20121128/0828fd3b/attachment.html>