Re: solving some of our FTP problems
In article <m0tOyPb-000178C@miles.econ.queensu.ca> you wrote:
: I'd love that feature too. But that either requires a damn good script, or
: that everybody uses the same .changes format.
"Obviously", everyone should use the same .changes format... but I don't care
what that is, which is why I stayed out of the discussion the last time it was
: Given that we had that a rather use- and resultless discussion about a "human
: readable" vs "machine parsable" format, I am not sure whether we can arrive
I never saw the conflict as unresolvable, and I bet that if some useful
automation (like what is proposed here) would result, everyone might feel
differently about the value of coming to concensus. If we're just arguing
about what do or don't like to read on the list, and some hypothetical
automation, it's less real than when there's a specific result we're trying
: I like Bill's "dchanges" and use it. Do I dream when I think we could
: establish the use of posting PGP signed dchanges output?
I've thought about this a bit, and I wouldn't classify adding PGP signatures
to the posted dchanges output as something that's really important to do really
soon. However, if we were to open up dchanges for some work, and built some
automation around the package upload process, then it would certainly seem
reasonable to consider adding this while we're at it.
I'm too busy right now (got other folks arriving here tonight and tomorrow to
integrate pieces of the satellite payload I'm working on... as a hobby!), but
if there's any sense of a concensus that the Pending directory concept is
worthwhile, I'm willing to work on the tools, say, in the Jan/Feb timeframe.