AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20070206110906.4610284c@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<ken.renshaw@onstor.com>,<jay.michlin@onstor.com>
MAID:1
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/andys@onstor.net@onstor-exch02.onstor.net/INBOX	0	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0133632E@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 11:09:39 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>
Cc: "Jay Michlin" <jay.michlin@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 22636 for review
Message-ID: <20070206110939.1c39e9ef@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0133632E@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <WEBMAILsrQruvgsPXQU000003c5@mail.onstor.com>
	<20070205213212.2244c81e@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E0133632E@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
Organization: Onstor
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

