Hi Paul and all, I agree with Chris N. here. Every exception we make, makes it harder to explain and stick to our rules. I tinkk every patch should at least have 2 parties involved.
Katrin -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: [email protected] im Auftrag von Chris Nighswonger Gesendet: Mo 28.05.2012 17:03 An: Paul Poulain Cc: [email protected] Betreff: Re: [Koha-devel] Signing-off a patch for a customer Hi Paul, On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Paul Poulain <[email protected]>wrote: > Hello koha-devel, > > I just pushed a follow-up for bug 6858. If you look at the patch, you'll > see that the author is from BibLibre, as well as the sign-offer. But if > you look more carefully on the patch comments, you may understand that > Stephane Delaye has signed-off "in the name of the library". We're > facing here a case where the library don't want/can't sign-off their > patch (they don't know how to do it and don't want to bother with doing > it. They just said this patch worked for them) > > At BibLibre, we have 3 project managers: Stéphane Delaye / Gaetan > Boisson / François Charbonnier. They are librarians and are doing the > glue between the library our customer and our developers. > they know how to sign-off a patch. > > I want, in this mail, request that those 3 ppl from BibLibre (and only > them) can be sign-offers for patches written by another BibLibre > developer, once the library has confirmed it works. > > I propose that we define a standard message, something like > Signed-off-by: Delaye Stephane <[email protected]> > patch validated by <LIBRARY NAME>, signed-off in their name > > Can I have your agreement with this idea ? > (of course, in case another support provider has the same kind of > situation, this would also be applicable. It's not something I want for > BibLibre only) A look over the history of that bug seems to indicate that Biblibre has been responsible for: 1. Creation of the code 2. Sign-off of the code 3. QA of the code I am not comfortable with this situation. It is not particularly a "Biblibre" thing with me, but a matter of principle. And it is occurring with greater frequency. I believe we need to stick with the principles we agreed to. This patch clearly missed the "approval" of a dis-interested party in its initial commit to master. (Perhaps Katrin mentioned this at some point, but I'm not sure.) We need to take up the slack here and get a disinterested QA on this followup prior to pushing it to master. I am of the strong opinion that going forward we need to maintain a more strict compliance with this principle of dis-interested sign-off/QA. Clearly at times one or the other may be impractical, however, one *or* the other is always possible. Perhaps it may not fit the desired schedule of the vendor, but violation of this principle is the first step down a slippery slope. Kind Regards, Chris
_______________________________________________ Koha-devel mailing list [email protected] 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/
