Bonnie Corwin <Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM> writes: > Richard Lowe wrote: >> Bonnie Corwin <Bonnie.Corwin at Sun.COM> writes: >>>Richard Lowe wrote:
>>>>Is this just covering the move to mercurial, or the move outside, too? >>> >>>Since it will be a two-step process, I'm figuring this one will cover >>>just the transition to Mercurial. >> >> >> Yes, last I heard the two steps would be fairly close to eachother >> though (has that changed?), so I wondered if you were going to >> condense the two training wise. > > Well, we've ended up with so much trouble with the first step that > I've just been concentrating on that in terms of trying to set a date. > We're hoping for the September/October timeframe for the transition to > Mercurial. > > I think we originally thought we'd want about a month between that and > moving the gate outside. Yeah, it was either a month or two. > I think the date for moving the gate will partly depend on a set of > must-haves' around it. For example, can we move the gate outside so > people can start doing direct commits but continue to build inside for > some amount of time if all the gatekeeper tools aren't complete? The difference between the gate being inside and outside in that regard is pretty much where the gk bits bringover from, they'll need to be aware of mercurial in general either way. The second step in that is mostly finding the places where they expect to be within the gate itself (which I think is fairly rare), and adjusting the builds to bringover from the new location. > Answering this is leading me to think we should pursue the transition > to Mercurial first. And once we have a plan with a real date for that > I'll start working the 'move the gate outside' planning. > I agree, as I said, I think most of the change with most of the gate being outside is just pointing people at the new location, and where the nightlies and onnv-gate/public end up. -- Rich
