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

[Robert Collins]

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.

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

Rob

-- 
GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20060125/8dcee4d1/attachment.pgp