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

[Samium Gromoff]

At Thu, 16 Oct 2003 19:13:27 -0700 (PDT),
Tom Lord wrote:
> 
> 
>     > 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.

        Well, let me mention Lua on this one.

        http://www.lua.org/

> 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

regards, Samium Gromoff