Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Status of global and tree aliases

[Andrew Suffield]

On Thu, Jul 22, 2004 at 10:36:24AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> Meanwhile, some of my questions (to myself) as arch maintainer are: Why
> isn't asuffield done yet?  (Why didn't the tla pqm take about 1-3 days
> to bring up?);

That's an easy one. It's a combination of vague specifications, and me
being too damn busy to work on it full-time (I'm moving house in a
couple of weeks).

In the past couple of weeks, I've mostly chased false leads and
figured out a lot of ways not to do it, before I came up with a more
or less complete and workable scheme (things like: how do we validate
changeset signatures? the obvious way is to have a registry of
archives, and a list of gpg keys that may sign changesets for each of
them. it's wrong). The next person to do something like this should
have a much easier time of it, since they won't have to spend as long
figuring out what the damn thing is supposed to do.

> to what degree will a pqm be a layered system that
> users have to learn separately and to what degree does it make sense
> to build some of that functionality into core arch?

The actual pqm part itself is almost completely distinct. Rather, it
layers over buggoo, and just decides which merge requests to accept,
and commits them to some branch. The voting scheme is then just the
decision function on top of that. It'll become more apparent later,
but the primary interface from tla will be just to buggoo - which from
a certain perspective, is a higher-level changeset collation and
classification tool.

-- 
  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' :  http://www.debian.org/ |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature