Stephen Lau <stevel at sun.com> writes: > Richard Lowe wrote: >>> What do you guys think? It's not the answer I was hoping for, >>> since I was hoping SFW would provide some exposure/testing to the >>> tools before they went into ON; but I can understand Mike's >>> concern. Honestly I think if this *did* happen, it would just push >>> back the migration of ON, since I don't know that we'll finish up >>> all our work by September to integrate into ON anyway. >> >> I don't want migrating SFW to delay ON, however, several (varied) >> people have mentioned to me that something smaller than ON moving >> first would make them far less worried about this, SFW is the only >> real target that qualifies (since it's the only smaller-than-ON >> consolidation that's open, aiming for Hg, and ON-like). > > Yeah, I've had similar conversations with people. SFW would provide a > good test; unless Install magically becomes open sourced overnight. > >>> On the plus side it does make sure that our tools are backwards >>> compatible (not that I think that's really an issue), and it will >>> get us additional tools testing as people will really start using >>> the tools on mercurial workspaces (since not everybody knows how to >>> find our onnv-scm SUNWonbld) >>> >> >> The obvious down side is that it presents a chicken and egg problem. >> >> It seems that beyond a handful of people, nobody is willing to try >> this stuff out until it integrates into ON, and we don't want to >> integrate into ON without a fair number of people having tried it out >> and seemed happy. > > If we can be reasonably assured that at least the Teamware > compatibility of our tools works well, then I'm less opposed to > integrating into ON with less Mercurial coverage if it means we pick > up SFW as a test case for our tools.
Not a test case, just a group of users other than ON, and before ON. Nothing should land until it's ready. > I'm not keen on filing numerous bugster bugs to then track Mercurial > issues once they're in ON - but so be it... I think it's a small and > reasonable price to pay. The ideal would be that you wouldn't have to, as above, nothing should land before it's ready. > Mike Kupfer wrote: >> I think the plan of integrating our tools, migrating SFW, then migrating >> ON sounds fine. I suppose it could delay the ON move, but at this point >> I think the critical path for the ON move lies elsewhere (e.g., code >> changes). > > Agreed - I still think a critical path is training/documentation which > we are still desperately short of. Yes. > So if we're in consensus about this, we should probably talk to the > C-team (or at least Mark & Dave) about this plan of action and see > what they think. > To the extent of landing in ON before ON moves? I thought that's what Mike had suggested quite a while ago now. To the extent of landing before stuff is ready? No, that's bogus. -- Rich
