On September 27, 2010, Julian Edwards wrote: > On Friday 24 September 2010 03:50:42 Maris Fogels wrote: > > There's one more scenario that I'd like to see - marking a change as > already qa-ok when it lands. In the Soyuz team we frequently do QA on > unlanded branches on the dogfood server, partly because it's easy for us > to do this, and partly because we're extremely uncomfortable landing some > kinds of changes without a *lot* of QA first (over several weeks). > > Right now I am using the [no-qa] tag for PQM which makes the scripts mark > the bug as qa-untestable. I'd like it if we could have a [qa-ok] as well > to indicate that QA was indeed carried out sucessfully. This would also > reduce my frustration when I forget that the tagger script happily removes > my qa-ok tag and replaces it with something else. ;) >
I think this is a sensible request. There are some other use cases where a change is QA-ed on staging by a manual merge before being landed. (That happens for release-critical bug fixes or security fixes). -- Francis J. Lacoste [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
