http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=7167
--- Comment #44 from Chris Nighswonger <cnighswon...@foundations.edu> 2012-01-06 14:19:29 UTC --- (In reply to comment #43) > Chris N, > > QA is not strictly assessing the validity of the code and it's conformity to > our established coding guidelines. It also takes into consideration larger > implications of the code being submitted, the possibilities of regressions and > the risks of introducing new bugs. Perhaps I'm overstating the scope as > others > understand it, but this is my understanding. I don't think that this is an overstatement of QA responsibilities. I just think that QA rejection should include concrete, demonstration issues. ie. What are the exact regressions/bugs along with examples of exactly how those will manifest. If the code is demonstrably buggy or regression-causing, it should fail QA. It should not fail QA on issues which are anticipated/suspected, but no confirmed IMHO. > > That said, having another status to mark this other than "Failed QA" would be > good, because the code itself isn't technically invalid. Perhaps "Planning" > or > "In Discussion"... ? Such a choice would be nice. "In Discussion" would be an unambiguous tag. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Koha-bugs mailing list Koha-bugs@lists.koha-community.org http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-bugs website : http://www.koha-community.org/ git : http://git.koha-community.org/ bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/