Jim Walker wrote: > Richard Lowe wrote: >> Items #5 and #7 there could do with some explanation: >> >> 5. SFW gate uses Teamware and Mercurial in parallel >> 7. ON gate uses Teamware and Mercurial in parallel >> >> Could you be more specific on what you mean by "in parallel"? It's >> infeasible to run both SCMs as nominal masters, side-by-side, and I >> assume that isn't what you mean, but I can't tell what it is you do >> mean. > > I updated the page to word things better. During the SFW and ON gate > migrations, there will be a period where we have a Teamware gate and > a Mercurial gate in operation near the same time (ie. somewhat in-sync). > At a high level, some may think of this as "running in parallel". > > I have found the phrase "running in parallel" provides comfort to > most users when big changes are happening. If this phrase isn't > accurate at all, then let me know what you think is better, or > give me list of the conversion steps. I'm new to the project.
Ah I think maybe there was a miscommunication; there won't be both a Teamware and Mercurial gate representing the same consolidation running at the same time (at least not with both being 'commit-able'). So we'll 'flip the big switch' so to speak and /ws/sfwnv-gate will go from being Teamware to being Mercurial. And shortly thereafter it will move from /ws/sfwnv-gate to ssh://hg.opensolaris.org/sfw/sfwnv-gate or something to that effect. I'll leave that one up to mike_s ;-) cheers, steve -- stephen lau // stevel at opensolaris.org | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development
