Le 21/06/2010 22:04, Chris Nighswonger a écrit : > On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Paul Poulain <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Le 21/06/2010 20:44, Chris Cormack a écrit : >> >>> This is certainly a possible plan of action, but no, I won't be >>> pushing any patches to master without them going through QA. >>> Certainly not 450 in one go. They will need to be branched into >>> smaller feature sets and each one tested and merged. What I am willing >>> to do, is be less strict about accompanying tests as the patches were >>> written before that, what I am not willing to do is merge 450 patches >>> that haven't been looked at by QA or the Release Manager into master. >>> These aren't new rules. >>> >> 1- we did a lot of QA on them, and although there may be some remaining >> bugs, we are live with them on 1 site, very soon on a second one, and >> many more. >> > But this approach is not acceptable in the community at large as > evidenced by the BibLibre acquisitions work introducing four blockers. > I never wrote that publicly, but I must say i'm not very proud of the new acq code. it can/must be improved a lot. > What you and your clients may be able to live with, others may not be > able to live with. So not only do we need good QA at the vendor level, > but also at the community level as well. > of course. the idea being that merging very early (reminder : everything is written) means we would have 6 months to find & fix bugs. It's not the same as merging 10 days before releasing imo. >> 2- we proposed to submit those patches many months ago, but galen >> decision was : "feature freeze for 3.2". We had to go ahead. >> > This had to happen some time. > agreed. The problem being that 3.2 is very late. Today, we have to do something to merge our work. > I would suggest that the problem is not with the feature freeze, but > perhaps with not keeping in sync with the main repo master. > we tried, but had some bugs introduced by the merge + we were too short on time. Again : today, we (BibLibre) are willing to do something because in a few weeks, it'll be too late, unfortunately > > I think that at a minimum the present BibLIbre work would need to be > merged into a topic branch off of the stable 3.2 master and then > testing/debugging be done on that topic branch while keeping it in > sync with the stable master. > see answer to the other chris for the rest of your mail ;-)
-- Paul POULAIN http://www.biblibre.com Expert en Logiciels Libres pour l'info-doc Tel : (33) 4 91 81 35 08 _______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
