X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Received: by onstor-exch02.onstor.net 
	id <01C74A27.20315E95@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>; Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:43:50 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:43:50 -0800
Message-ID: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E025BDABF@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: PERFORCE change 22636 for review
Thread-Index: AcdKIlk4o+IQDhC8QJqDtjcQXMmnZgAA4wegAABC8aA=
From: "Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>
To: "Jay Michlin" <jay.michlin@onstor.com>
Cc: "Andy Sharp" <andy.sharp@onstor.com>

On a like note, Jay, do you have a list of everyone under you that I can
check to make sure we're covered for licenses? Maybe the contents of the
dl-software list if that is a good reflection of your team.

Thanks,

-Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Renshaw=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:40 AM
To: Andy Sharp
Cc: Jay Michlin
Subject: RE: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

Hi again Andy, and thanks. We should probably talk more ;)

Sorry for being cranky, I didn't mean to be. It's actually refreshing to
have someone take interest in every checkin to the degree you do. I wish
everyone did, and thanks for the extra set of eyes.=20

Yes, I think a missing piece is the new hire communication, and making
Trudy the locus for it all seems like a good idea. If you wanted to send
her a note that would be great, thanks. She should probably notify
myself for Perforce, Sandrine for Clearquest account setup. I imagine
she's already notifying IT.

Thanks Andy, and if anything else seems weird to you at first glance,
feel free to prod me about it. It's quite possible there might be
something screwy.

Have a good one,

-Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Sharp=20
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:10 AM
To: Ken Renshaw
Cc: Jay Michlin
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 22636 for review

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 22:19:49 -0800 "Ken Renshaw"
<ken.renshaw@onstor.com> wrote:

> I'm not even sure what you're last sentence means Andy, if your quip
> was true wouldn't we have free licenses??

That's exactly what I mean.

> //depot/nfx-test/... is the QA test repository that uses a shared p4
> license because every test client in the lab needs it, and licenses
> are issued per real human, not per machine ( that's even according to
> Perforce's license agreement ). It's just not feasible to license
> 100's of machines that are shared by many QA engineers in automated
> scripted test environments. The configuration management is at the
> machine level in this case. What *is* a foul here is using
> localhost.localdomain as the client name, which should be something
> like c9r20-linux ( computer 9 on rack 20 running linux ). This makes
> perfect sense to everyone else and is what we will continue to use
> for client specs in our test environment.

Makes perfect sense to me.  Thanks for explaining it.  At least I will
know what's going on in the future and won't freak out.

> I agree all developers should have their own licenses. In the past it
> was decided by management including Jerry to not buy licenses for all
> of HCL but to use the client space to denote it, e.g.
> perforce@sahayaj-lambo, even though some/many of the HCL folk do have
> their own. If management would like to change this that's perfectly
> fine with me, and I'll collect the quote and get a PR written up for
> signature for any we are desirous of, but talking down to me like
> this in the wrong context is not helpful.

I was actually going to you as the authority on the matter to get the
low-down, not talking down to you.  I wanted to know what was going
on, and now I do, at least more than before.  I watch the checkins,
and like to know what's going on with our software, and was not aware
that nfx-test was a qa-only testbed area.  I seems to me that we were
on the same page as far as this issue goes.

> The real problem in not keeping up to date with licenses is that dev
> hires people, doesn't plan for it by telling me beforehand, they

So what I'm hearing is that there is a piece missing from our new hire
process where we should be informing you ahead of time and requesting
a perforce account, before they arrive, so that you can manage the
situation in a rational manner.  Why don't you or I fill Trudy in on
adding that piece to the new hire process and hopefully that will
improve the situation going forward.  If you would rather I do it, just
let me know, I'd be happy to take care of it.

a

