Relating two Jazz Repositories
We would like to set up our own separate Jazz Repository for System Test tasks, process, documents, etc., but have it somehow related to another Jazz Repository which contains the defects which we write, developers fix, and we verify. Is it currently possible to relate two repositories, and if so, where would I find details?
Thanks so much -- Carol Ulbricht |
13 answers
|
Christophe, thanks for writing Enhancement 28113 for the Item Connector component. I wrote Enhancement 28128 for #2, the SCM Connector and Enhancement 28149 for #3, the Team Central view.
https://jazz.net/jazz/web/projects/Jazz%20Project#perspective=Work% 20Items&action=viewWorkItem&id=28113 https://jazz.net/jazz/web/projects/Jazz%20Project#perspective=Work% 20Items&action=viewWorkItem&id=28128 https://jazz.net/jazz/web/projects/Jazz%20Project#perspective=Work% 20Items&action=viewWorkItem&id=28149 Carol |
The category for "item interoperation" (e.g. the CQ Connector) is actually named "Interop", and the category for "SCM interoperation" (e.g. the CC Connector) is "Interop SCM".
John Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote in news:f8lb96$h3f$1 feel free to file an RFE workitem in the Connector category Anyone sees the Connector Category in Jazz.net ? I thought we had an Incubator category, but I cannot see it anymore :( -- Christophe Elek Serviceability Architect IBM Software Group - Rational |
cjulbric@us.ibm-dot-com.no-spam.invalid (cjulbric) wrote in news:f8m4c7$rgh
$1@localhost.localdomain: Does that agree with what the rest of you think could be done/would be +1 for #1 and #3 I do not have a need for #2 (but this is me :) Should not stop other from voting ) -- Christophe Elek Serviceability Architect IBM Software Group - Rational |
|
Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote in news:f8lb96$h3f$1
@localhost.localdomain: feel free to file an Opened Enhancement 28113 https://jazz.net/jazz/web/projects/Jazz%20Project#perspective=Work% 20Items&action=viewWorkItem&id=28113 -- Christophe Elek Serviceability Architect IBM Software Group - Rational |
|
Christophe Elek <Christophe.Elek@gmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns997E62C0E7B79celekcaibmcom@199.246.40.53: Anyone sees the Connector Category in Jazz.net ? As per John and to follow on the same thread: "The category for "item interoperation" (e.g. the CQ Connector) is actually named "Interop", and the category for "SCM interoperation" (e.g. the CC Connector) is "Interop SCM". John" -- Christophe Elek Serviceability Architect IBM Software Group - Rational |
|
Geoffrey Clemm <geoffrey.clemm@us.ibm.com> wrote in news:f8lb96$h3f$1
@localhost.localdomain: feel free to file an RFE workitem in the Connector category Anyone sees the Connector Category in Jazz.net ? I thought we had an Incubator category, but I cannot see it anymore :( -- Christophe Elek Serviceability Architect IBM Software Group - Rational |
|
For SVT, I think being able to synchronize some subset of work items would be first priority. For example if we have a separate repository for Test, we would want to synch the defects we write, and also selected defects written by customers or developers, with the developers' repository. We would want to receive any attachments to those defects. However, we would want to be able to make private associations between those defects and other Work Items in our repository that are not synched or visible in the developer's repository.
Second priority would be synching a (small) portion of the SCM. For example it would be good if testers could on occasionn deliver an entire workspace to developers for debugging, and developers could deliver patches to testers, to make sure a proposed fix works in our environment. In the case of development by virtual teams spanning multiple organizations, delivering a component to both a development repository and an integration repository would probably be more important than work items. Third priority would be including events from two repositories in the same Team Central. Does that agree with what the rest of you think could be done/would be useful? Carol |
Geoffrey Clemm (30.1k●3●30●35)
| answered Jul 30 '07, 2:39 p.m.
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR / FORUM MODERATOR / JAZZ DEVELOPER
The SCM Connector and Item Connector components (that implement the CC
Connector and CQ Connector, respectively) are written in a generic fashion that architecturally would allow a Jazz to Jazz connection. So if you believe SCM/Item Connector semantics would be valuable/desirable between two Jazz repositories, feel free to file an RFE workitem in the Connector category (please include information about what kind of information you want to be sync'ed over). Cheers, Geoff aaakilov@us-dot-ibm-dot-com.no-spam-invalid wrote: However, I agree with you and Carol that there are cases (at least for |
|
aaakilov@us-dot-ibm-dot-com.no-spam-invalid wrote in
news:f85afo$iim$1@localhost.localdomain: Not sure if you view the above as resistance to openness on our part Howdy :) I agree it is not a Simple Problem... I think some eclipse commiter call that RFP :) Really Fun Problem :) So... :) Should we open an RFE in jazz.net ? -- Christophe Elek Serviceability Architect IBM Software Group - Rational |
Christophe,
You can always add yourself as a subscriber to the core Jazz.net work item and you will get an email whenever it is updated. However, I agree with you and Carol that there are cases (at least for now) when it makes sense to maintain separate Jazz repositories and provide some connector like functionality between them. Although Jazz is meant to be an Enterprise repository, in real life (e.g. in the case of virtual corporations) it makes sense to keep separate repositories for separate needs and define very clear synchronization links between them. Otherwise, we'd need a very strong Access Control mechanism in place that prevents team members not belonging to the team from browsing content in the secure team area. In some cases, full transparency is just not as appropriate as for other teams. Also, work items would probably need to be classified with secured categories to prevent those who do not have permission to view those discussions from finding out anything they're not supposed to. Not sure if you view the above as resistance to openness on our part or a real concern that may be surfaced by customers in the future. |
Your answer
Dashboards and work items are no longer publicly available, so some links may be invalid. We now provide similar information through other means. Learn more here.