Another vote for keeping the current workflow. Chris has done a fantastic job as RM, nothing else needs to be said.
Kyle http://www.kylehall.info Mill Run Technology Solutions ( http://millruntech.com ) Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org ) Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org ) On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:01 PM, Chris Cormack <ch...@bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote: > Hi All > > Recently I have been having a crisis of confidence. I have, I hope, > always tried to do what I think is best for the project. Often I do > make mistakes, a notable one happened in 2007, which I hope I in part > was rectified in 2008. But my underlying motivation with Koha has > always been to do the best for the users of the software. > In my role as Release Manager for 3.4 (and again for 3.6) what I felt > was best for the software users was a stable and well tested release. > This is something I made clear in my proposal, and which I had assumed > was understood (but you know what they say about assumptions ;)). With > the huge amount of work put in by over 80 people, I think we managed > to achieve some measure of success with that with 3.4.0 and that the > stability of the 3.2.x releases is something we can all be proud of. > > Over the last couple of weeks, comments and mails both on and off list > have made me think that maybe I am out of step with what the community > desires. For 3.6 quality was still the major goal, but perhaps I have > misjudged what others want. This has resulted in sleepless nights and > quite a large amount of self doubt. > > Luckily we are still early in the 3.6 cycle, there is time to fix it. > > Options as I see them > 1/ Continue with the current workflow, patches signed off, passed qa, > then into master, with the goal to increase the rate patches are > signed off > 2/ Refine the workflow to make signing off easier > 3/ Redesign the workflow eliminating sign off (for a period, or all of > the release) > 4/ Step aside to let someone else have a go at RM > > As Paul has noted in another thread, I am not comfortable with > allowing patches into master untested, and I don't think I could do a > good job as RM if that were to become the case. In that case I would > rather become one of the developers submitting patches again, so > perhaps 3 and 4 are the same for me. > > So, in the interest of transparency and openness, there's where my > head and heart are. I wish what is best for the users of Koha, and I > fear that maybe I am out of step. > > Comments? > > 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/ > _______________________________________________ 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/
