[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Managing RC bug merges

[Dan Scott]

On Sep 5, 2012 11:48 AM, "Galen Charlton" <gmc at esilibrary.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
> On 09/05/2012 11:41 AM, Bill Erickson wrote:
>>
>> Surely there's a psychological difference between 2.2.3 and 2.3.0,
>> but I don't see one in practice.  If anything, 2.2.3 has *more* cause
>> to be handled with kid gloves, since 2.2 is much more widely used in
>> production systems.
>
>
> .0 releases often feel bigger, but I agree with your overall point that
we should avoid brown-bagging *any* release, be it a functionality release
or a minor bugfix release.
>
> I actually support triple-signoffs as a matter of course -- author,
tester, QAer, for example -- but I don't think we've got enough numbers yet
to do that without unduly slowing down the flow of code.

For the record, I don't see what an RC branch buys us; we should be as
careful in rel_2_3 as we would be in the theoretical RC branch.

I'd be in favour of triple sign off for anything in a branch past RC.
Including after a .0 has come out.

Maybe in the short term an automated test (whether unit or system) could
serve as a replacement for one of those sign-offs, if we feel that there
aren't enough skilled individuals in the community... but it's definitely
been encouraging recently to have sign-offs from Kathy, Ben, Jason,
Michael, and others adding immensely to the QA effort!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://libmail.georgialibraries.org/pipermail/open-ils-dev/attachments/20120910/3607a598/attachment.htm>