PQM Work This Summer

[Daniel Mark Watkins]

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:30:37 +1000
"Martin Pool" <mbp at canonical.com> wrote:
> > With respect, getting this right is crucial but it's really better
> > (at least documenting the issues) coming from folks who are having
> > the problems; normally someone who's very familiar with setting up
> > a moderately complex system already initimately understands the
> > details and they don't seem unclear/difficult/etc. in the same way.
> 
> I agree.  But I think here Daniel has some amount of "beginner's mind"
> and may be able to do it.
> 
> Alternatively maybe you (and other people on the list) could draft the
> way you'd like the documentation to be, and we can work towards that.
I certainly am a beginner to PQM (finally managed to get it working for
the first time earlier today).  However, the latter option would be
preferable for me because:
  a) it would give me some time to get familiar with the codebase,
  b) it would give me some time to clean up the codebase (I'm mostly
     thinking of the VCS abstraction removal here), and
  c) I'm not experienced enough with situations where PQM would be used
     to know what people would expect/want from it.


Cheers,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20080701/f15d843d/attachment.pgp