Voting foo as PQM policy? [was: attn folk doing reviews.]

[Aaron Bentley]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

This whole thing seems awfully familiar.  Didn't we plan this for Gnu Arch?

Robert Collins wrote:
| On Tue, 2006-01-24 at 23:23 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
|
| Presumably a gpg signed email would be a vote (or if its launchpad
| integrated a web form could do), but I'd be inclined to start with a gpg
| mail as pqm has that infrastructure already.

This whole thing sounds awfully familiar.  Didn't we plan this for Arch?

Sure.  Merges could be assigned merge numbers, which would appear in the
subject header, so that replies would automatically reference the right
merge request.

| So, PQM could queue rather than discard merge requests that are not
| signed, and list them on the web ui separately.
(signed with a committer key)

| What about latency? Branches age - and signatures would [presumably] be
| only on the revid that PQM found on the branch, to stop bait-and-switch
| problems.

Right.

| So, would the review cycle be fast enough to address this ?.

I most things are merging cleanly right now, and that should still apply
if we go automated.

| Also, if changes are needed, do previous votes still apply? (and how is
| this represented given the bait-and-switch issues that relate to this)

For resolving merge conflicts, committers should be able to merge, fix,
commit without further votes required.

Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFD1x740F+nu1YWqI0RAnocAJ9gZwIZeYQg0+jsIZ8nfbwtco/WKgCghDMo
D0oGAmkCqFo2NpweXQ9emy0=
=fA2a
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----