[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2
From: |
Colin Walters |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2 |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Oct 2003 22:19:35 -0400 |
On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 22:13, Tom Lord wrote:
> I think this is a good direction but it needs to cook more, along with
> the patch tracker foo.
Do you have any specifics?
For example, would you accept patches to implement "submit-merge" in my
proposed form? I think that actually the idea of submitting a merge
request is a fairly general one, and other types of arch process
management software could leverage the same architecture (dropping a
file into a queue or sending a GPG-signed email).
> And I'm increasingly convinced that we want an extension language [...]
I think what we really want is for tla to be friendly to extension
languages, rather than requiring a specific one. tla is already fairly
friendly to scripting, what with parse-package-name and a good
commandline syntax (albeit one that changes fairly frequently :)). With
some changes in libarch that have been discussed before (like not
aborting on every error), a Python module would be fairly doable.
Slightly offtopic, but: I wish you wouldn't use tla so much as a vector
for the propagation of only somewhat related memes. It's fine that
you're writing another scheme/lisp implementation; but it should be able
to stand on its own merits, rather than being dragged along with tla.
> [...] in
> which to start writing "process management" customizations. pqm
> illustrates that. The notes we've had on archivist illustrate it.
> and the notes we've had on patch trackers illustrate it.
I don't think the difficulty is interacting with tla - the code to do
that in tla-pqm is just a few lines, really. The harder parts of pqm
are things like parsing emails (which actually Python makes completely
trivial) and validating GPG signatures, and those problems aren't
tla-specific at all.
> People have been talking about integration with eclispe and, well,
> that's fine -- but really i think we want a whole new kind of "project
> management IDE" here.
That would be neat, but we should go for a layered solution, because
some people may not want certain aspects, or may find it too complex or
too limiting.
> "embarassingly behind on merges but just about over the hump towards
> catching up",
Speaking of, here's a few changes I have:
address@hidden
tla
tla--mainline
tla--mainline--1.1
[...]
patch-38
[tests] first cut at some inventory tests
patch-39
implement multiline inventory regexps
patch-40
[tests] test symlink outside of tree
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
- [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2, Colin Walters, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2, Colin Walters, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2, Tom Lord, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2,
Colin Walters <=
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla-pqm 0.2, Miles Bader, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla-pqm 0.2, Colin Walters, 2003/10/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla-pqm 0.2, Paul Hedderly, 2003/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla-pqm 0.2, Tom Lord, 2003/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla-pqm 0.2, Colin Walters, 2003/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla-pqm 0.2, Tom Lord, 2003/10/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: bugs-closing (was: tla-pqm 0.2), zander, 2003/10/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: tla-pqm 0.2, Pau Aliagas, 2003/10/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2, Tom Lord, 2003/10/17
- [Gnu-arch-users] Extension language, Mark A. Flacy, 2003/10/16