Danek Duvall writes: > Is it really useful to have the gatekeeper tools in ON itself? Does > committing to that part of the repo mean following the full set of RTI > rules that the rest of the gate requires? Given the tiny audience for > these tools, I'd say no -- it adds a pretty significant burden to > maintaining the tools. Maybe that's me resisting change, but it's not > clear to me that non-product code (that used by at most one or two people) > should be here.
Depending on how the tools are written, they may also be useful for those who are running large project gates and perhaps even to independent consolidations, so I don't think the audience is necessarily restricted to just the main ON gate staff. In any event, given the importance of the tools, I think keeping them under SCM control is itself a helpful bit of discipline. If it's really the case that they change often and that the RTI process is onerous for them, then that part of the problem should be addressed. Perhaps they could be fixed so that they needn't be changed often (may need to extract some parts into configuration files) or the burden of the RTI process should be examined. Instead of having each developer cobble together his own build script, we have a common `nightly' script with options. Maybe the same sort of design could serve for gate scripts. -- James Carlson, KISS Network <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ tools-discuss mailing list tools-discuss@opensolaris.org
