> Jim> I was talking with Mark Nelson about the clone, and he mentioned > Jim> that in the reasons they have an active clone: > [...] > Jim> 1. reduces locking issues (teamware issues) > Jim> 2. more stable than gate (ie. changed only once a day) > Jim> 3. reduces traffic on gate (ie. pulls are done most of the time) > > Jim> 2 and 3 still seem useful with Hg. > > I'm confused. Is point 3 related to system-level contention issues, or > is it something else? The parenthetical remark makes it seem like point > 3 is about how readers can starve writers with Teamware. But in that > case I don't understand the difference between points 1 and 3.
I don't remember point 3. The issues I talked about were putback validation/build stability (only updating the clone once a day allows incremental builds, and gives a generally-more-likely-to-build-cleanly workspace.) Read/write lock contention management and write protection of the source are also quite valuable, but I don't know that they're pertinent in a Mercurial scenario. --Mark > Jim> It would be good for [Dave Marker] to review this area. > > Yeah, we should make sure that we're on the same page as the > gatekeepers. > > mike > >
