Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Re: Future of GNU Arch, bazaar and bazaar-ng ... ?

[jblack]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:45:46PM +0200, Matthieu MOY wrote:
> martin f krafft said:
> 
> > Another thing I am completely missing from baz is better/more
> > flexibly/scalable hook support.
> 
> That's very hard to do in a secure way: baz hooks are arbitrary code, and
> have to be ran on the client since there's no real server. And I don't
> want arbitrary code to be executed on my machine when I run baz ...

Not to pick nits, but hooks aren't arbitrary code. They're code that
traditionally the user himself has written. 

> pqm is a solution. arch-trigger is another one.
> 
> I don't know how bzr can handle this. If there's support for sandboxing in
> Python, the plugin system of bzr can probably implement this in an elegant
> and secure way.

Shouldn't be a problem. Think of pqm as an authenticated email based
shell. You could do just about anything with it, much of which has nothing
f to do with revision control at all. :) 

> I prefer bzr to take its time and provide something really good than hurry
> and release a half finished stable version soon ;-).

Patience is a virtue. :)





-- 
 James Blackwell      |   Life is made of the stuff that hasn't killed
 Tell someone a joke! |   you yet.                       - yours truly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400