The scripts are starting to take shape now.
We have most of the hooks we want.
Just to be clear, we are aiming for parity this time around.
That means we check RTI in changegroup not pretxnchangegroup.
So push without RTI approval means backout (just as it does today).
Still missing: cstyle check.
I remain concerned about the "hook window". I know its small, but
having sanity.py take several seconds still means there is a chance
for somebody to pull from the gate and get a changeset that is
destined for rejection.
Mark had begun testing the hooks before he left for vacation.
I also got a first stab at clone update script. This one shouldn't be
as vulnerable to the "hook window", as I make it wait before
determining which revision to pull over to the clone.
Still to be done:
set up our test bed to do clone updates, nightly builds, incremental
builds.
If it can do all that we will be in good shape. Yes that means that
things like
the biweekly build may be a manual operation for b97. But that's my problem.
That won't affect ON developers.
I'll be scripting all weekend.
And Mark and I will hit the testing hard starting Monday (when he returns
from vacation).
I'm not setting up webrevs, but I keep the repo fairly current as I add
things:
ssh://anon at hg.opensolaris.org/hg/scm-migration/onnv-gk-tools
All comments are welcome.
If you are internal we do have a "fake gate" set up that we play around
with.
I am not spending time worrying about how we are going to get users
public ssh keys. Hopefully when Mike gets back he can help us take
what hg.os.o already has to seed the gate.
-dvd
Linda Bernal wrote:
> Team,
>
> It makes sense to cancel this Friday's meeting since Mark and Bonnie
> will both be out. Dave, can you please send us an update on the
> gatekeeper tools status?
>
> Thanks,
> Linda
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> scm-migration-dev mailing list
> scm-migration-dev at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/scm-migration-dev
>
