+1, QAM is not the same as carry the yolk alone!
On Aug 2, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Ian Walls wrote:
Dear Community,
As you are likely aware, I am the elected Quality Assurance Manager
for the 3.6 release. As you may also be aware, there are currently
96 patches in Bugzilla that are signed off and ready for QA testing
(at the time of this writing). My goal for my term as QAM was to
keep this list under 10, but as we can see, that's not the current
state of things.
I do not want to become a bottleneck against good code getting into
Koha. Quality Assurance is by it's nature a painstaking process,
especially with more complex patches, to ensure that there are no
regressions of functionality, or massive, unexpected shifts in
default behavior. Often, numerous configurations of data need to
checked against, to make sure fixing a bug for one possible setup
doesn't cause a new bug in another. So far, we've not had to pull
any code from master due to a regression, so it seems this process
is working. But, that said, we've still got nearly a hundred
patches waiting in the queue.
Paul Poulain has offered to assist me with QA for the remainder of
the Koha 3.6 release cycle. He's got the hours to dedicate towards
this, and can help put some of these patches through their paces.
While anyone can test any patch that's been published (and everyone
is encouraged to do so), Paul is asking for the additional power to
mark the patches he's tested as "Passed QA" if they do indeed pass
his tests. Here are the exact terms of the proposal:
a) he would not mark any patch he himself has written as Passed QA
b) any patch written by BibLibre would need a signoff from another,
external person before he'd test it
c) he would start with the patches that have been waiting the longest
d) the QAM and RM could reject any "Passed QA" patch if they feel
it's not sufficient for whatever reason (which would need to be
noted in the bug report)
I do not feel that I necessarily have the right to transfer the
"mark patches as Passed QA" power over to another person without the
community's consent. So, I bring this to the group. Is this an
acceptable proposal? Does the QAM have the right to "deputize"
community members and transfer this particular power, or does the
community need to vote on it? Are there any aspects of the issue
that I'm missing?
Thanks for your consideration and attention on this matter,
-Ian
--
Ian Walls
Lead Development Specialist
ByWater Solutions
Phone # (888) 900-8944
http://bywatersolutions.com
[email protected]
Twitter: @sekjal
_______________________________________________
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/
