On 12 May 2011 00:19, Marcel de Rooy <m.de.r...@rijksmuseum.nl> wrote: > Liked that article! > As relative new member of the community, I am wondering if the current > signoff/passed_qa procedure really encourages new members to keep sending > patches. > It could happen easily now that a patch does not get any attention. What > makes someone now select a patch for signoff? Coincidence, contacts, > application feature?
Unfortunately that has always been the case since we moved to the workflow of having patches. The new statuses and reports showing bugs waiting for sign off have I think made it less likely. For 3.4.0 for example there were over 1000 patches, from 66 different people in 6 months that made it in. So I think we are slowly improving all the time, and should strive to continue to do so. Currently now the best way of getting a patch signed off, is asking someone to look at it. > imo we need some more structure at the signoff side. We have the Bugzilla > categories that define the default assignment for a new bug. Would it be > useful to assign a default signer per category too? Such assignments could be > evaluated regularly to see if they still work. > This is also not a new idea, for a long time now we have been trying to get people to volunteer to 'own' a section of Koha. IE someone volunteer to look after circulation, someone else the opac, someone else xslt etc. So far without success, I'd love for this to happen though :) Chris _______________________________________________ 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/
