The developer is supposed to estimate the cost of the development including the QA process and the different steps of submission. A (good) developer must take care of most of the project's requirements and follow the guidelines. He will also provide tests for the change he made, write a valid and correct test plan, take care of side-effects, provide small patches, etc. The longer a developer will spend during the development step (before the first submission), the quicker the QA process will/should be :)
Hope it makes sense, Jonathan PS: QA is not an exact science... On Wed, 29 Mar 2017 at 11:44 Cab Vinton <bibli...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Druart > <jonathan.dru...@bugs.koha-community.org> wrote: > > I would not expect a QAer to be paid (by the sponsor of the enh) to > review a > > patch, I'd call that more corruption / conflict of interest than > sponsoring :) > > Ah. Hadn't thought of it that way. Good point. Not sure there's an > easy way around that one, even if the QAer is paid directly by the > sponsor. > > I suppose that's the nature of incentives -- they produce changes in > behavior that wouldn't happen otherwise, a process that can be > "innocent" or corrupt ... > > Thanks, > > Cab >
_______________________________________________ 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/
