AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:<20070628135547.6dd62aae@ripper.onstor.net>
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@onstor.com
RQ:
SSV:onstor-exch02.onstor.net
NSV:
SSH:
R:<ken.renshaw@onstor.com>,<ed.kwan@onstor.com>,<eric.barrett@onstor.com>,<larry.scheer@onstor.com>,<sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>,<tim.gardner@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	BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02F3D392@onstor-exch02.onstor.net
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:56:20 -0700
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@onstor.com>
To: "Ken Renshaw" <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>
Cc: "Ed Kwan" <ed.kwan@onstor.com>, "Eric Barrett"
 <eric.barrett@onstor.com>, "Larry Scheer" <larry.scheer@onstor.com>,
 "Sandrine Boulanger" <sandrine.boulanger@onstor.com>, "Tim Gardner"
 <tim.gardner@onstor.com>
Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 24402 for review
Message-ID: <20070628135620.1f372212@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02F3D392@onstor-exch02.onstor.net>
References: <WEBMAILyYa6yc6qsEgs00001e45@mail.onstor.com>
	<20070628133217.04a3717d@ripper.onstor.net>
	<BB375AF679D4A34E9CA8DFA650E2B04E02F3D392@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 Thu, 28 Jun 2007 13:38:30 -0700 "Ken Renshaw"
<ken.renshaw@onstor.com> wrote:

> Actually, it didn't go into Clio ( which is technically the
> R2_1_X_rel branch ). When we started 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 at the exact
> same time we used a cascade branch model for those three:
> 
> main->R2_1_X_work->FB-LAMBORGHINI->FB-DELOREAN
> 
> This was done in this one case since the 2.1 code had to be pushed to
> 2.2 in realtime, then into 2.3 and this saved a billion indirect
> merges. However, it still left me 1000 mini-merges to do afterwards
> so that I pushed the code back to main in order, too. The merge you
> just saw was actually:
> 
> DeLorean->main via R2_1_X_work since it was between them. 
> 
> Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain ;)  This all goes away
> with the currently discussed branching models of course. We have
> actually used about 10 different variations of branching models to
> get to market and through the market, and hopefully the knee-jerk
> type reactions can stop in this regard and we can settle into a
> robust yet easy to maintain model.

Amen to that.  Sorry for spamming everybody with my curiosity.

Cheers!

> Thanks,
> 
> -Ken
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andy Sharp
> Sent: Thu 6/28/2007 1:32 PM
> To: Ken Renshaw
> Cc: Ed Kwan; Eric Barrett; Larry Scheer; Sandrine Boulanger; Tim
> Gardner Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 24402 for review
>  
> Hmm, wondering why this went into 2.1/Clio.  I'm thinking this would
> allow a flash to be built that won't run, ie., with the dynamic flash
> layout but with clio on it, which won't work with the dynamic flash
> layout, unless every other change related to that has also been
> integrated into clio, which seems odd to me.  No customers actually
> have clio do they?  Or none still have it.  Is that right?
> 
> 
> On 28 Jun 2007 13:19:05 -0700 Ken Renshaw <ken.renshaw@onstor.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > Change 24402 by kenr@kenr-linux-depot on 2007/06/28 13:14:55
> > 
> > 	Push final (?) DeLorean change, P4 24294
> > 
> > Affected files ...
> > 
> > ... //depot/R2_1_X_work/nfx-tree/Tools/flash_install.sh#5 integrate
> > 
> > 
> > http://liszt:1818/@md=d&cd=//depot/$c=G35@/24402?ac=10
> 
