Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> writes:
> This works, and has a nice feel to it, but is also missing a couple
> of things: a mechanism for rebutting a change, or indeed alerting
> the submitter to the fact that his coFde has been reviewed and
> merged or rebutted. It would be nice to have a mechanism for
> trimming down log messages on a merge; the log message for the final
> trunk merge would usually a subset of the message justifying or
> arguing for a change. On a higher level, there's no real control
> over the main trunk, and no voting mechanism; I don't imagine it
> would scale well to, for example, use on Subversion itself.
What about a pre-commit hook that would mail the outstanding txn-name,
log message, author, and diff to a mailing list of folks who have the
bits to incorporate or refute a proposed change, and then essentially
stall the Subversion txn into a limbo state. After review one of the
bits-bearers could either abort the txn or merge it into the
repository. You'd want some Process() around this, perhaps custom
tools to handle the abort/merge, mailing the status back to the
submitter, etc. And, you could suffer out-of-dateness pretty
quickly/harshly since the Subversion server doesn't do any text
merging at all. But it still is an interesting line of thought, don't
ya think?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:37:05 2006