Re: mechanisms for reviews needed

[Jacob]

Arthur Barrett wrote:

> I would have proposed all this but you said that you didn't want to use
> branches....

Actually, I don't really care how it is implemented. I guess there
must be a branch under the hood keeping track of the pending commits.

What I meant was that I don't want to stretch the tool in order to
fake what I want; This is such an important feature that it should
be at the very heart of the VCS engine.

> Is the procedure I suggested workable for you?  If not what would be
> your reasons for avoiding it... I certainly don't think we've got this
> perfect at CVSNT yet, but since you are asking for such a feature I
> though I could use it as an opportunity to learn a little about someone
> elses success/fail criteria.

I will certainly look into your CVSNT project, thanks! I am pretty
sure what I want as I use this feature from a commercial vendor on
a daily basis. The main difference from CVS is that it is _transaction_
based. You bundle a set of changes into a _revision_. The revision gets
an ID and you submit the revision as one unit. It is put into a pending
area where everybody can fetch it. They can then build it locally, and
test it. The assigned reviewers will accept or reject the revision.
When it is accepted, it gets commited to the repository automatically.
All communication of revision status is automatic and e-mail based.

> I tried to send this to you directly rather than the CVS list, however
> it appears your e-mail address is bogus...

I try to live without a spam filter... :-)