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

[James Blackwell]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 05:38:56PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 01:29 -0500, James Blackwell wrote:
> 
> > > 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. So, would the review cycle be fast enough to address this ?.
> > > 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) 
> > 
> > I'd imagine that pqm would do a branch --basis upon the request. This
> > would also protect against people giving URLS for which there is no
> > branch.
> 
> At the cost of allowing a DOS on local storage.

I'd prefer risking a DOS over bait-and-switch. One is a fail-safely and
the other is a non-detected failure. Anyways, onto the issue that concerns
you more.

> Anyhow, thats neither here nor there - the latency and changes issues
> are neither hindered nor helped by doing that or not. [I'd be more
> inclined to just eject -2 voted branches - which means that branches
> that dont exist also dont clutter up the system

I'd reject anything -2 immediately and all remaining non-+2s within two
weeks. Submitters shouldn't be kept in limbo overly long. Then, they know
their branch is bitrotting and can choose whether to abandon it or work on
it until it does meet the measure for +2.


-- 
My home page:   <a href="http://jblack.linuxguru.net">James Blackwell</a>
Gnupg 06357400  F-print AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D  247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400
-------------- 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/ebd4bc05/attachment.pgp