[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft)
From: |
Thomas Lord |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft) |
Date: |
Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:55:08 -0700 (PDT) |
> From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>
> > I could live with:
> > X-BugGoo-Bug: 423
> > X-BugGoo-Bug: 428
> > [etc.]
> > How about that?
> Doesn't interface anywhere near as neatly - and there's no particular
> reason why these headers should be specific to any given system. If
> you happen to be using bug goo, and the values you put in the headers
> happen to coincide with its syntax, it all works out neatly; if you
> happen to be using some other system, you could just as easily put
> some string in which makes sense to that.
I look forward to a point in the future at which arch and buggoo or a
close relative are more tightly integrated. Separable, sure, but
more tightly integrated.
I also look forward to a point in the future at which there is a
document limiting and defining the valid header fields in an arch log
message.
> I've deliberately avoided introducing any system-specific names into
> the interface so far, and I'd like to keep it that way; anything else
> is useless diversity. We don't *need* BugGoo-Bug and Bugzilla-Bug and
> Debbugs-Bug, and it would be a significant impediment to tools which
> don't care what system you're using. Any non-server-side tool that
> works for BugGoo should also work for just about anything else.
> A 'Bug' header that takes an arbitrary string is *at least* as useful
> as a 'Keywords' header that takes an arbitrary string, and almost
> certainly more so.
That the "Keywords" header is ill-defined is not a reason to emulate
it by adding more ill-defined headers :-)
What if I am using not one but *two* bug systems, as one might expect
at a shop using arch/buggoo internally to import upstream projects
which use cvs/bugzilla?
> And a --bug argument to commit is far more sensible than a set of
> --buggoo-bug, --bugzilla-bug, [...] options.
It will be more sensible when arch and a bug system are more tightly
integrated.
Until then, a "--bug" option belongs in the interface to a
higher-level command than tla itself should offer.
>> I would actually like to archive, for casual contributions, the
>> submitters signed archive.
> Why?
To have as accurate and complete and crypotgraphically verifiable a
record of the origins of the code as is practical.
-t
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), (continued)
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Jeremy Shaw, 2004/10/02
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Andrew Suffield, 2004/10/02
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), James Blackwell, 2004/10/03
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Matthew Dempsky, 2004/10/03
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Harald Meland, 2004/10/03