Jim Walker wrote: > 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.
He's on the alias yeah. #2 is nice to have - but it's not hard to clone a specific revision making stability a matter of looking at the log to see what rev you want, and pulling that. I don't particularly care either way... that'll be a GK decision. I'm not sure I understand #3. Are you talking about network traffic? cheers, steve -- stephen lau // stevel at sun.com | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net opensolaris // solaris kernel development
