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

[Jan Hudec]

On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 23:23:19 -0500, Aaron Bentley wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Robert Collins wrote:
> | At martins request I'm setting up PQM for bzr.dev, so the committer term
> | will imply 'can commit straight to bzr.dev' - and I think its
> | appropriate to have the physical access, and the trust to not commit
> | silly things linked.
> 
> I gave a presentation on bzr at the local Python User Group tonight, and
> there were a couple of interesting suggestions.  Here's the first:
> 
> Review interface as pqm policy
> ==============================
> It might be nice if the PQM policy for bzr allowed anyone to submit
> merges.  The merges would be logged.  They could generate emails to
> committers.  They could also update a tracking page.
> 
> However, they would only be processed if the required votes were submitted.

I wanted to see such thing (for any version control system) for quite
some time. I think it would be best done by integrating pqm into a
sufficiently flexible issue tracker. There you would have a type of
issue, a merge-request, that would have the necessary fields for PQM and
for the policy. Then adding the vote would trigger the merge attempt.

RT has 'approvals', which would work for the votes. They are separate
tickets linked with the approved issue and hooks (scrips in RT
terminology) implement the approval logic.

I thought about doing it in RT, but I guess it's doable in Trac or
Launchpad (and probably simpler because of common programming language).

Personally I would not be satisfied with only a web form - I'd want mail
interface (too).

-- 
						 Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb at ucw.cz>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060125/39975f2c/attachment.pgp