On 27/01/11 17:36, Thomas S Hatch wrote: [...] > I have been passively working on a similar project called quarters, but I > must admit that my motivation is somewhat low not knowing if the project is > in demand. So here is my question, do we think that something like this > would be a benefit to Arch? Is this the type of project that should merit my > attention? I am not an Arch dev, but I do help maintain a set of packages and I think this sort of a things would be useful. > Also, if we do think that this would be a good thing to have for Arch, I > would like feedback on what types of features the system would have and how > it would behave. Right now I am following the idea of supporting a > distributed build system so that we can have any number of build servers in > the fray working away to produce Arch packages for us. I am also attempting > to build it in such a way that a database is not required and that the > interface would be amazingly simple (this is Arch after all). This would > mean that by mearly checking into svn a package would be built, and then an > interface would pop up for the right people to sign it off, and once it has > been signed off it would move over. The set of packages I help maintain is kept in a git-repo on github, so the first feature request would be to *not* tie it closely to a single VCS. The second request would be to allow for more than one repo of packages to be monitored by the build bot. The use case would be developers staging their changes in a personal, but still public, branch/clone. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx jabber: magnus@xxxxxxxxxxxx twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
