Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft)

[Thomas Lord]

    > From: Andrew Suffield <address@hidden>

    > > I could live with:

    > >         X-BugGoo-Bug: 423
    > >         X-BugGoo-Bug: 428
    > >         [etc.]

    > > How about that?

    > Doesn't interface anywhere near as neatly - and there's no particular
    > reason why these headers should be specific to any given system. If
    > you happen to be using bug goo, and the values you put in the headers
    > happen to coincide with its syntax, it all works out neatly; if you
    > happen to be using some other system, you could just as easily put
    > some string in which makes sense to that.

I look forward to a point in the future at which arch and buggoo or a
close relative are more tightly integrated.   Separable, sure, but
more tightly integrated.

I also look forward to a point in the future at which there is a
document limiting and defining the valid header fields in an arch log
message.


    > I've deliberately avoided introducing any system-specific names into
    > the interface so far, and I'd like to keep it that way; anything else
    > is useless diversity. We don't *need* BugGoo-Bug and Bugzilla-Bug and
    > Debbugs-Bug, and it would be a significant impediment to tools which
    > don't care what system you're using. Any non-server-side tool that
    > works for BugGoo should also work for just about anything else.

    > A 'Bug' header that takes an arbitrary string is *at least* as useful
    > as a 'Keywords' header that takes an arbitrary string, and almost
    > certainly more so.

That the "Keywords" header is ill-defined is not a reason to emulate
it by adding more ill-defined headers :-)

What if I am using not one but *two* bug systems, as one might expect
at a shop using arch/buggoo internally to import upstream projects
which use cvs/bugzilla?


    > And a --bug argument to commit is far more sensible than a set of
    > --buggoo-bug, --bugzilla-bug, [...] options.

It will be more sensible when arch and a bug system are more tightly
integrated.

Until then, a "--bug" option belongs in the interface to a
higher-level command than tla itself should offer.

    >> I would actually like to archive, for casual contributions, the
    >> submitters signed archive.

    > Why?

To have as accurate and complete and crypotgraphically verifiable a
record of the origins of the code as is practical.


-t