Re: [Gnu-arch-users] (tla--devo--1.3--patch-28) fix for revlibs vs. NFS

[Andrew Suffield]

On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 09:21:03AM -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
> 
>     > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>
> 
>     > > Summary: [NOTE] fix for revlibs vs. NFS
> 
>     > Okay, I just noticed this is (obviously) a valid pseudo-header, which
>     > fits in too neatly to miss. A couple of trivial relaxations for
>     > unknown fields means it's now valid for [COMMIT] messages.
> 
>     > So, you just stuff Bug: and Merge: fields into the log header, and
> 
>     > tla cat-archive-log $ARCH_ARCHIVE/$ARCH_REVISION | mail -s "[COMMIT] 
> $ARCH_=
>     > ARCHIVE/$ARCH_REVISION" address@hidden
> 
>     > Or something like that. I'll snag the 'Summary' header as well, at
>     > some point.

> (I trust that if I don't stick in those headers the message is
> ignored?  The decisions "forward this commit message to the list" and
> "make a bug goo txn" would ideally be orthogonal.)

Well, things are never quite simple - all mails are processed, at
least to decide whether to stash them in a bug log. But active
operations only happen when a subject tag is recognised.

As far as Bug/Merge headers go, I can't imagine why you'd ever want to
avoid them here - a [COMMIT] message simply says "It's in *this*
revision". In the degenerate case (unrecognised user) it just notes
the revision in the summary files for everything listed. More
sophisticated operations are roughly a matter of project policy,
although they're hardcoded for now.

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

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature