On Jul 5, 2012 12:25 AM, "Marcel de Rooy" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Paul, all > > > Seeing if it can break something requires a lot of experience with Koha code source. When I QA code from BibLibre, I'm not biaised because it comes from BibLibre. > Are you sure? Just looking at your statement from outside BibLibre, I would say that there could be conflicting interests here.. (With all due respect !) >
Neutral is always to be preferred imho. > > Should we, then, give a grant to some specific, experienced & trustable ppl to QA ? > Isn't that already the case? Or do you feel that we should extend the QA team? If we dissolve it on the other hand and grant a new QA privilege to say 15 developers, it may just be a little too optional/non-committal. Would that really be more productive? > I thought it was already the case too, and that's what we had nominations and elections for. I'd hate to replace that system with a cartel like appointed system. Chris > > For example, the eclipse foundation has "contributors" and "committers". > From first glance, I suspect that we compare two non-similar workflows. > > Marcel > _______________________________________________ > 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/
_______________________________________________ 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/
