Mike Kupfer wrote: > Jim> - Why don't we have an external clone? Is the readable > Jim> clone/writable gate not needed anymore? > > stevel> Yup, it's not needed anymore. > > The last I heard Stephen Hahn talk about this, he liked the idea of > having a semi-stable nightly snapshot--something that you could > reasonably assume would build, and which probably wouldn't panic the > system as soon as you booted it. I think it's a good thing to have, > too. > > With Mercurial we could do that with a tag instead of with a separate > workspace, but do we actually have such a tag in place? >
I was talking with Mark Nelson about the clone, and he mentioned that in the reasons they have an active clone: Reasons to have a clone 1. reduces locking issues (teamware issues) 2. more stable than gate (ie. changed only once a day) 3. reduces traffic on gate (ie. pulls are done most of the time) 2 and 3 still seem useful with Hg. In talking with Dave Marker, he got me up-to-speed on the current ON gate with one clone for users and four clones that allow him to do one build per hour, so he can identify which putback caused a build issue more quickly. Is he on this alias? It would be good for him to review this area. Cheers, Jim
