Le 24/10/2011 20:30, Ian Walls a écrit : > Everyone, Everyalone, (french joke suspected ;-) )
> In an effort to make patch submission and quality assurance easier on > everyone for this next release cycle, I've got some proposals to run by > you all. > > 1. In Bugzilla, move the Koha Bugs List from being the Default QA > Contact to a Global Watcher. This has two advantages: > 1. It frees up the QA Contact field for use by the QA Team > 2. It guarantees that the Bugs List always gets included on the > changes; with the current set up, someone could in theory remove the > Bugs List as QA contact, preventing the list from getting updates. +1 > 2. To reduce email traffic, I propose we stop sending SIGNED OFF > patches to the patches list. We've got Bugzilla lists (which can be > connected to RSS and daily croned emails) which will inform the QA team > on what patches are ready for QA. I did not use the patches list much > this last release cycle to direct my QA work; it was all based of the > Bugzilla statuses +1 (and already decided I think. At least i've updated the wiki that way 2 hours ago !) > 2a. Ideally, I'd like to set up Bugzilla to automatically send the > patches to the listserv for us, or to be able to accept patches sent to > the listserv as attachments. This is going to take some custom coding, > so it's probably not practical for right now. +1 (and same comment : it would be great, but I don't know how to do it for instance) > 3. Now that I'm not the only QA person for the release cycle, I'd like > to formalize our rules about making sure that any submitted patch > doesn't get processed solely by one company. I felt uncomfortable every > time I passed a patch both written and signed off by ByWater teammates, > because while I was sure it was good code, I knew I had a bias (often > times, the code was fixing an issue one of our partners had reported). > My strategy for 3.6 was to acknowledge the bias, and ask if anyone had > any objections. With 3.8, I can pass anything that I write, or that is > written/signed-off by ByWater alone, to Marcel or Jonathan for QA testing. > > Here're the rules I'd like to see in place: > > 1. A patch may not be written and signed off by the same person > (existing rule) OK > 2. The QA team consists of the Release Manager, the Quality Assurance > Manager, and the Quality Assurance Assistants. This team has the > right to move a patch through QA. OK > 3. The QAM delegates the QA work between himself and the QAAs, in > accordance with the rules. OK, but how will you 3 decide who-QA-what ? module by module ? 1st who shoot ? regular meeting to assign QA ? other ? > 4. A patch may not be written and QA'ed by the same person +1, no doubt > 5. A patch may not be written, signed off and QA'ed by any group of > people in the same institution You mean the 3 (writter-signoffer-QAer) can't be from the same institution ? So 2 can be OK ? I agree then. > 6. A patch MAY be signed off and QA'ed by the same member of the QA > team, but the RM may challenge this if he feels the patch needs more > testing. Rule 5 still applies in this case. +1 And it's not only a matter of "sign-off & QA by the same member". for major patches, I may/will request more testing than just 1 sign-off. in a few cases, Chris asked for more testing (when it was MARC sensible, for example), I'll continue that way (and maybe be harder than him) it may be worth adding a line about that. > Comments? Ideas? Counter-proposals? A few comments: * for trivial patches (like template changes, comment/doc), I wouldn't object to have a short circuit (just 1 of QA/sign-off for example) * I'm OK to be a member of the QA team (as RM, see #2). And I'll introduce a little change in RM stuff: I may/could push a patch without testing it myself. I'm not sure yet, but I feel that if a patch has been written by Nicole, signed-off by Katrin, QAed by Marcel, in some situations, i will trust them. For now I don't know if this possibility will arise, but it could. My idea here is to have more time to communicate/organize/improve team working/... I'll see and let you know if it happens. * can we say "RM has the final cut" about accepting a patch ? -- 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 Koha-devel@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/