[Koha-devel] [QA] QA process

[Chris Nighswonger]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Paul Poulain <paul.poulain at biblibre.com>wrote:

>  > light of that, I think two months would be reasonable.
> > In
> 2 months ? That's really a long period, considering we've a 6 months
> release cycle, with Feature & String Freeze. That let only a short time
> for New Features and Enhancements
> I was thinking of 2 ... weeks. Let's cut the fruit in two (frenchism ?)
> and say one month ?
>
>
+1 for one month. Large change sets become hard to rebase quickly.


>  > Also, it's worth pointing out that we have a QA *team*. If there's a
> > BibLibre patch that's been signed off that isn't getting QAed, it is
> > absolutely reasonable for you to e-mail the koha-devel list a message
> > something like: "[QA] Does anyone have time to review poor benighted bug
> > XXXX?"
> By default (at least for me), the "signed off" list is organised by
> date. I've the assignee & changed column in the result list, it's
> trivial to see who did what, and when it has been signed-off.
>

Here again, I would propose some sort of QA guideline which requires the
oldest, highest severity, signed-off patchs to be QA'd first. This would
seem to lay to rest the entire issue of patches becoming poor and/or
benighted. :-)

Kind Regards,
Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.koha-community.org/pipermail/koha-devel/attachments/20121129/a6c74e65/attachment.html>