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

[Colin Walters]

On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 11:26, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: Colin Walters <address@hidden>
> 
>     > Second, submit-merge could be based on some metainformation stored in an
>     > archive.  
> 
> Yeah, I'm not too fond of that.   At least it should be finer
> granularity that that.

Well, yeah.  I agree my proposal needs more thought.  Your other emails
on the subject are very good, I'm going to reply to them soon.

> Which is a really interesting idea if we can figure out what it means
> but it also suggests that it really doesn't belong in tla itself.

Right...although it kind of depends on what you mean by "in tla itself".
I think we'd like for arch to be easily amenable to dealing with the
varied metadata that people want to associate with their software.

> Tla is just doing the basic revision control stuff (ideally) -- what
> you're talking about is a new thing that's layered:
> 
> 
>         |                                                 |
>         |                     new thing                   |
>         ---------------------------------------------------
>         |        |              |                 |       |
>         |  tla   |  bug tracker |  test framework | smtp  | (etc.)

Yep.  But again I think that in order to write "new thing", we will
likely want some changes in tla.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part