Re: mechanisms for reviews needed

[Julian Opificius]

This is what we do.
In fact for strange, illogical, historical reasons we actually release 
into PVCS - a different revision control system altogether. Our 
Configuration Management group do the work, once our checklists, etc, 
have been completed.

Julian.
=====================
Mark H. Wood wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm joining the discussion late, so someone may have suggested this
> already, but...how about *two* repositories?
>
> One is for the developers.  Anybody can check out.  Anybody can check in.
> Everybody can see what is going on and fix stuff.
>
> The other is for release engineering.  Only the code librarians may check
> in.  Nobody gets past the code librarians without showing evidence that
> the revisions being promoted have gone together through the development QA
> process and met the project's standards of goodness.  Once a librarian is
> satisfied, the named revisions are copied from the developer repository to
> the release repository for integration of documentation, release QA, and
> delivery to manufacturing.
>
> This way you can (if you choose) use the same tool with two different sets
> of rules for two different situations.
>
> - -- 
> Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   address@hidden
> Open-source executable:  $0.00.  Source:  $0.00  Control:  priceless!
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/
>
> iD8DBQFC74Kes/NR4JuTKG8RAv4GAJ9p3oY0pvw1FkHbdjJmnZbU5G9r/QCcDYW+
> Umit7MztnPmCjeRV9swCYKc=
> =7xS4
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Info-cvs mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs