Stephen Lau wrote: > 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". >> > 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 ;-)
Thanks. So, the old Teamware gates will only be used as backups, and we won't attempt to keep them in-sync with the new Mercurial gates. I updated the webpage. Cheers, Jim
