# Note: We use REPL_MAILFROM rather than REPL_MAILTO, since # REPL_MAILFROM is guaranteed to be a single email address, # where REPL_MAILTO might be a list of addresses. Syntatically, # a single email address is required here. User: REPL_OSUSER Email: REPL_MAILFROM FullName: Perforce Admin Type: standard
| # | Change | User | Description | Committed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| #3 | 25550 | C. Thomas Tyler |
Split HMS from SDP, such that HMS will live on as a separate product, layered on the SDP. See: https://swarm.workshop.perforce.com/jobs/SDP-356 Many of the files deleted here have already been copied to HMS. See these HMS changes: https://swarm.workshop.perforce.com/changes/25531 https://swarm.workshop.perforce.com/changes/25533 And this branch spec: SDP_Split_2019.2_HMS In mkrep.sh, HMS-awareness is removed from mkrep.sh, a core SDP script, and the '-f' (Full Setup) flag has been temporarily removed. This useful functionality will be restored in an HMS script. This is a big change, so shellcheck v0.6.0 was implemented to support it. |
||
| #2 | 25114 | C. Thomas Tyler |
Fixed bug where an extra user named REPL_OSER was created on the 'hms' server, and the 'perforce' user was created wrongly. |
||
| #1 | 21294 | C. Thomas Tyler | Merged down hms dev work. | ||
| //guest/perforce_software/sdp/dev/Server/Unix/setup/hms/perforce.user.p4s | |||||
| #1 | 21103 | C. Thomas Tyler | Merge down to dev from main. | ||
| //guest/perforce_software/sdp/main/Server/Unix/setup/hms/perforce.user.p4s | |||||
| #1 | 21081 | C. Thomas Tyler |
Added preliminary files in support of automation of the HMS Tight Ship installation. The key file here hs hms_ts_setup.sh, which is currently a 'doc only' script that documents what it is intended to do, although it doesn't currently do anything that affects data. The '-h' and '-man' flags work to convey their intent. This also contains various spec files to be used in the actual implementation. Bypassing pre-commit review since this is only adding new 'doc only' code, not active software. #review-21082 |
||