Re: [Gnu-arch-users] tla-pqm 0.2

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Colin Walters <address@hidden>

    > However, tla-pqm isn't as "transparent" as a smart server would be.  I
    > think with a little support from tla, it could be fairly nice.

    > For example, a tla command such as "submit-merge" would help.  It would
    > do essentially what is listed in the manual:
    > (echo "From: $(tla my-id)"; echo "Subject: $1"; echo; echo star-merge
    > "$(tla tree-version)" "$2") > /usr/src/tla-pqm/patch.$(date +%s)
    > Or the user could specify to use email.  It also would be good to have a
    > way to specify a default archive/revision to send merge requests to; say
    > {arch}/=3Dupstream or something.  This would list both the queue location
    > or submit email address, as well as the archive name, so all the user
    > needs to say is "tla submit-merge -s 'fixed some bugs'".

I think this is a good direction but it needs to cook more, along with
the patch tracker foo.

And I'm increasingly convinced that we want an extension language 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.

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.

"embarassingly behind on merges but just about over the hump towards
 catching up",
-t