[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft)
From: |
Andrew Suffield |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft) |
Date: |
Sun, 3 Oct 2004 02:05:42 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i |
On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 05:55:08PM -0700, Thomas Lord wrote:
> > 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?
Option 1: make up your own headers, and translate them appropriately
in your submission scripts.
Option 2: use two different branches.
Option 3: fully specify the bug names such that it's clear which one
you're referring to.
Option 4: (my preference) gateway bugzilla via buggoo. It has an
interface and partially-completed code whereby every bugzilla bug can
also be given a buggoo name (semi- or fully-automatically), and
changes can be propagated in both directions (this is more-completed
for debbugs; I hate bugzilla and am not likely to complete that in the
near future, having no desire to work with the thing; expect to see
debbugs interaction deployed here sometime in the next few
months). Then just use the buggoo names for everything.
> >> 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.
Archiving is not my problem. I don't see why you need to work through
this archive rather than via an intermediate branch; the two things
can (and should) work independently.
--
.''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
: :' : http://www.debian.org/ |
`. `' |
`- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
- 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