On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 02:45:46PM +0200, Matthieu MOY wrote: > martin f krafft said: > > > Another thing I am completely missing from baz is better/more > > flexibly/scalable hook support. > > That's very hard to do in a secure way: baz hooks are arbitrary code, and > have to be ran on the client since there's no real server. And I don't > want arbitrary code to be executed on my machine when I run baz ...
Not to pick nits, but hooks aren't arbitrary code. They're code that traditionally the user himself has written. > pqm is a solution. arch-trigger is another one. > > I don't know how bzr can handle this. If there's support for sandboxing in > Python, the plugin system of bzr can probably implement this in an elegant > and secure way. Shouldn't be a problem. Think of pqm as an authenticated email based shell. You could do just about anything with it, much of which has nothing f to do with revision control at all. :) > I prefer bzr to take its time and provide something really good than hurry > and release a half finished stable version soon ;-). Patience is a virtue. :) -- James Blackwell | Life is made of the stuff that hasn't killed Tell someone a joke! | you yet. - yours truly ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GnuPG (ID 06357400) AAE4 8C76 58DA 5902 761D 247A 8A55 DA73 0635 7400 _______________________________________________ Gnu-arch-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-arch-users GNU arch home page: http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/gnu-arch/
