[Koha-devel] [QA] QA process

[Paul Poulain]

Le 28/11/2012 22:34, Katrin Fischer a écrit :
> Hi all,
Hi QAM,

> We already agreed some time ago that the patch writer and the patch sign
> offer should not be from the same company/library/party. I would really
> like to extend that rule to also apply for patch writer and QA team
> member. For 3.12 we got a big QA team, which is great, because with all
> the ongoing work we are going to need it. And it also gives us more
> options and flexibility when it comes to these kinds of questions.
> 
> I would like to get your opinions on this, can we agree on this new rule?

Am I right if I say that BibLibre will be the company mostly concerned
impacted by this rule ? Checking numbers.
Some numbers: there are 131 patches waiting for signoff or QA. 52 are
from BibLibre (40%)

Displaying by "date of last change" (ie= there's been no activity on
this bug since...)
* August= 9 patches: 5 BibLibre,  1 OSSlab, 1 ByWater, 3 others
* September = 8 patches: 4 BibLibre, 3 ByWater, 1 other
* October = 27 patches: 14 BibLibre, 3 ACPL, 6 ByWater, 4 others
(All of them are Enhancements or New Feature)

At the end, my opinion is that it's a little bit unfair (and I restart a
long-standing discussion/complain...) BibLibre does a huge of effort to
submit all his development, and be quick when there is feedback.

The very bad side effect of delays is that we loose a lot of energy in
rebasing, just because there's no feedback from anyone, and when someone
step-in the patch does not apply any more.

We fully accept the rule for not self-signing the patch, because,
functionally speaking, I agree that it's good to have an external eye.
(and that's more important with large features)

But the QA is a *technical* check of the code. If something is wrong (ie
don't respect our guidelines, has a bad side effect, ...), as QAer, I'll
do *exactly* the same thing whoever the patch come from.

If I were suspicious, I could even say that you imply that, when
Jonathan or me QA a patch from BibLibre, we're biased, and I could be
upset by your suspicion (I'm not, I'm just very sad that this discussion
started again, while I thought it was solved)

I never "promote" BibLibre patches, I always QA by date of last change,
ie: I QA the older patch without activity. Yesterday, I QAed something
like 10 patches, iirc, 2 from BibLibre failed QA (including one just
because there was some PODDOC missing !)

Chris-es are proposing what could be a fair rule imo = "if no one step
up". What could be considered as "no one step up" being the next question...

-- 
Paul POULAIN - BibLibre
http://www.biblibre.com
Free & Open Source Softwares for libraries
Koha, Drupal, Piwik, Jasper