[Koha-devel] Facilitate integration of some patches

[Barton Chittenden]

String changes can be calculated algorithmically. I suspect that the other
complexities are largely a function of lines of code, number of files
touched, and number of dependencies... but I'm sure that there other
factors. The smaller the patch, the more likely that the complexity could
be determined by a machine.
On Aug 31, 2015 1:41 AM, "Katrin Fischer" <Katrin.Fischer.83 at web.de> wrote:

> I'd be ok testing Jonathan's suggestion of moving to Passed QA directly
> for for bugs with'string change' or 'trivial' complexity.
> QA and RM could still reset to 'Needs signoff' for a second opinion when
> they feel it's needed.
>
> I think the patch complexity can only be set after developing a patch -
> so making it mandatory might not work as a technical solution here.
> Maybe we can encourage the use of the field a bit more?
>
> Currently for most of the patches in the 'Needs Sign-off' queue the
> patch complexity is not set - so it's hard to tell how many patches this
> change would affect.
>
> Katrin
>
> Am 25.08.2015 um 14:57 schrieb Fridolin SOMERS:
> > +1
> >
> > On those 200, how many have a severity of trivial or lower ?
> >
> > Le 20/08/2015 15:51, Jonathan Druart a écrit :
> >> Hello devs,
> >>
> >> I would like to suggest a simplification of the integration workflow
> >> for some patches.
> >> Indeed the signoff queue is back to a critical threshold (200) and the
> >> signoffer's activity is very low.
> >>
> >> Being part of the QA team, I try not to test patches in the Needs
> >> Signoff queue as I loose my QA token.
> >> The active members of the QA team are very limited and when we do SO,
> >> this increase the QA queue.
> >> As a result there is less chances my patches are QAed as there are
> >> more and more patches in the QA queue. It's a bit egoistic, but we all
> >> have the same problem.
> >>
> >> So I suggest that for some patches, the ones with a minor severity,
> >> small or template changes could, IMO, bypass the signoff step.
> >>
> >> I would like to discuss this during the next dev meetings, but I am
> >> keen to get some feedbacks on this idea.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jonathan
> >>
> >> PS: If I am correct, we already have discussed about that previously.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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/
> >>
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150831/83f7218b/attachment.html>