Robert Cowham's Weblog 4 to 8 of 43 articles Syndicate: full/short

Perforce Branch Naming and Repository Structure Guidelines   19 Jun 07
[print permalink all comment ]

One of the the things that comes up just about every time I go in to do some Perforce related consulting for a client is that of repository structure - how do you map some particular branching scheme (combination of branching patterns) onto the repository?

This of course necessary since Perforce uses the repository structure to represent branches as well as other directory structures. This way of recording branches is feature one might occasionally wish were implemented otherwise, but it does have its attractions, and is the same model as used in Subversion and also Microsoft's new Team Foundation Server product (as an aside, it is perhaps not surprising that Microsoft chose this model since it is a not very well kept "secret" that their in house SCM tool called SourceDepot, introduced during the development of Windows 2000, was a re-badged copy of Perforce. Team Foundation Server is obviously a total rewrite on top of SQL Server, but they seem to be comfortable with the "branch in path space" model).

Some clients need help working out a good branching scheme, and some have relevant experience with other tools so are comfortable with that part, but many need help with the mapping. I have covered a little of this in my article Introduction to Perforce Branching, but this article expands on that.

For their flexibility, I would generally recommend people use branch specs (e.g. created by "p4 branch" command) for branching since you can add view mappings to address not propagating renames, and branch extra components. However, if you can keep the branch spec to a single view mapping then that is great! (Note that the P4V GUI allows integration via drag-and-drop - sometimes convenient, but can be somewhat dangerous...).

Guidelines

A repository branch structure is about creating an appropriate information hierarchy (designing an information architecture). So here are some guidelines that I have found useful over the years and seen successfully used in many organisations (and I certainly didn't invent any of them!). Maybe in the future I can come up with some appropriate pattern like descriptions, but for now, here they are:

  • Standardise naming conventions - make branch directories obvious
  • Keep branch spec mappings and client workspace spec mappings as simple as possible (and permissions)
  • Make it as easy as possible for users (new and experienced) to visualise the branching scheme as they click down through the hierarchy
  • Find the right balance between broad & shallow vs. narrow & deep hierarchies
  • Keep branches of a similar type at similar depths in the structure
  • Make branch directories sort sensibly
  • Plan for the future: 2, 3, 5 years down the line - include things like the year (and optionally month) somewhere in the path to provide a natural sorting.
  • Provide Guidelines and Delegate!
  • Remember - there is no one best solution, but there are many good enough solutions!

Some of what comes below is also covered by Laura Wingerd in her recent book "Practical Perforce" (O'Reilly) - you really need to get this book if you are responsible in any way for Perforce usage at your company! Her quote which sums things up nicely is:

"There is no reason that the repository structure should match the release lineage, but when it doesn’t it causes confusion to new users [and cognitive dissonance to all users]."

Now while I agree with the intent of what Laura has written, I find her suggested option is perhaps a little too restrictive, and it doesn't take into account organisations with many branches at a particular level (and indeed many different types of branches).

Standardise Naming Conventions - Make Branch Directories Obvious

Laura gives a very simple example in her book of naming convention - just use uppercase for the branch component. Thus she has:

//depot/MAIN/...
//depot/REL1/...
//depot/SOME_PROJECT/...
//depot/ANOTHER_PROJECT/...

This is simple and can work very well (although it rather suggests that you don't use uppercase for any other paths which might be unnatural in certain companies for certain items). Another alternative is to append (or prepend) something to the name indicating that it is a branch directory, e.g. ".branch" or or "-branch", or ".br" for those who don't like typing! Thus the above becomes:

//depot/main.br/...
//depot/rel1.br/...
//depot/some_project.br/...

I am happy to have other suggestions recommended!

Sensible Sorting

Directory (and thus branch) names should sort sensibly at any point in the hierarchy, thus

  • use leading zeros for numeric components, such as 01 instead of 1 if you are going to have more than 10, or indeed 4, 5 or 6 leading zeroes where necessary
  • reverse the order of dates using yyyy-mm rather than mm-yyyy

Examples:

//depot/main.br/...
//depot/rel_01_00.br/...
//depot/rel_02_00.br/...
//depot/rel_02_01.br/...
//depot/rel_02_02.br/...
//depot/dev/2007_06_some_project.br/...

Broad & Shallow vs. Narrow & Deep

At any one level the number of choices (sub-directories/branches) should be appropriate and naturally limiting (note that the structure needs to be as useable in several years time as it is now). For example, a structure which ends up with thousands of branches in a single directory will become unwieldy over time. Divide these branches into sub-directories using appropriate naming (and sorting). For example if you wish to create lots of branches for individual change requests then the obvious structure is very wide and shallow at some point in your repository:

~/rel 	/CR000001/...
	/CR000002/...
	:
	/CR000099/...
	/CR000100/...
	:
	/CR009100/... 
	:

Instead of that, try:

~/rel 	/CR0000xx	/01/...
			/02/...
			:
			/99/...
	/CR0001xx	/01/...
			:
	/CR0091xx/	/01/... 
			:

This naturally splits things up and also sorts at all levels.

As a corollary of the above you should split things up even if they don’t have a “natural” dividing component. One alternative is to use the date as an element of the path (or even a prefix) as YYYY or YYYY-MM to give some sort of natural sorting by date. Examples being:

~/2006-01/some_project/...
Or without introducing another level but using a prefix (which is often just a matter of personal preference):
~/2006-01-another_project/...

In 2 or 5 years time it should be obvious to any user which are the which are the “new” ones where they are likely to be spending most of their time, and which are the “old” branches which can typically be ignored.

Hiding or Retiring Old Branches

It is possible “hide” old branches by removing read permissions on those repository paths (leaving them visible to superusers or perhaps an "archive" user). There are some potential performance implications to doing a lot of this (the more lines you add to the protections table the more work the server has to do for commands).

Often the easiest way is just to make them easily ignored via an appropriate hierarchical naming convention as shown above.

Provide Guidelines and Delegate Responsibility

Larger organisations may have a number of teams or units each of which is responsible for products with sometimes quite different lifecycles and thus branching schemes. In these cases it makes sense to set the guidelines and principles and delegate to the teams the work of defining the precise conventions to be used.

Automation

If your repository structure is simple enough and regular enough then it is easy for tools or scripts to:

  • create them (perhaps with input from a user), including adding a mapping to the current client workspace view
  • have triggers that validate that they are being created in the correct place (e.g. don't allow a branch with wrong naming convention to be created in certain directories or levels of the repository). This prevents user error.
  • work out the relationship between branches automatically and thus be able to produce simple reports for things like changes that need to be propagated etc. While this is often done by means of some configuration file (stored in the repository), and indeed this is sometimes necessary anyway, it is easier if it can be automatically deduced from the structure (so that a new branch "popping up" is automatically included into the reporting mechanism).
  • make your protections table easier to maintain

There is No One Best Design!

And remember that this is always true - there are always many ways that are good enough, and the final choice often comes down to personal preference.

However, every type of branch should have a “home”, so that when a user creates a type of branch your CM Plan should have simple guidelines so the user is never at a loss as to where to create one. This requires identifying the types of branches likely to be used.

You need to do enough thinking and planning to get at least 80% of it right. It is of course possible to re-structure your repository (by branching from old name to new name and deleting the old within the same atomic changelist). However, this can cause you quite a few problems if the branch you are re-structuring has relationships with lots of other branches (e.g. release branches being maintained).

People who are aware of the issues and have experience, can slot in a new branch type fairly easily (though they can still end up making sub-optimal choices that they regret).

P4Web Usage and Action Codes   08 Jun 07
[print permalink all comment ]

People ask from time to time how to browse a Perforce repository, and the easiest answer is to use p4web.

Some advantages:

  • It's free, and in browse-only mode doesn't consume extra licenses - which means that you can "publish" changes via your Perforce server to managers and other people who may not normally have a Perforce license.
  • It will "serve up" things like Word documents such that they are typically opened in Word by your browser
  • It can give "canoical" or fixed URLs for documents or other configuration items stored in Perforce, so that fixed references always get the latest versions (as opposed to a file share where it is often unclear which is the latest and if there are any other versions etc)
  • The default URL to get the head revision is very simple:
    • <p4web-base-url>/<document path within perforce without double slash at start>, e.g.
    • http://p4web-machine/depot/some/path/to/document.doc

Example of Accessing a Document

A test document has been setup in the Perforce Public Depot.

The direct URL to load the document is http://public.perforce.com/guest/robert_cowham/test/testdoc.doc 

Alternatively it can be accessed for example with the history via p4web as:

http://public.perforce.com:8080/guest/robert_cowham/test/testdoc.doc?ac=22

Bear Security in Mind

If you setup in browse only mode as a user with access to the whole repository, you may be bypassing other security requirements and protections.

Consider setting up different p4web instances with different access permissions. Putting a separate layer on top of p4web with usernames and passwords, while possible, is likely to lead to maintenance problems.

DNS Alias to keep the URL fixed

If you start referring to a Canonical URL which then becomes used inside documents, make sure that the machine where p4web is running is accessed via a DNS alias so that it can be moved easily without breaking the references.

Also consider having a setup (e.g. via Apache or IIS virtual server settings) where the default web port of 80 is used to avoid ugly port components of the path such as :8080 or some other port  being required.

Parameters

The following were culled from personal experience and postings on perforce-user (by Noah Salzman  and Nick Levine )

Action Codes
10	Changelist Detail
http://p4web.example.com:8080/12345?ac=10

14	Branch Specification
http://p4web.example.com:8080/foo_branch?ac=14

16	Label Spec
http://p4web.example.com:8080/build_tag_123?ac=16

22	Revision History
http://p4web.example.com:8080//depot/main/foo.c?ac=22

64	View Head Revision
http://p4web.example.com:8080//depot/main/rel1/foo.c?ac=64

69	Submitted Changelists
http://p4web.example.com:8080//depot/main/rel1/foo.c?ac=69
http://p4web.example.com:8080//depot/main/rel1/...@build_tag_123?ac=69

142	View Annotated
http://p4web.example.com:8080//depot/main/rel1/foo.c?ac=142

143	View Fully Annotated
http://p4web.example.com:8080//depot/main/rel1/foo.c?ac=143

Note: the single forward slash (versus a double forward slash) is  
important in URLs that do not include depot paths.
107	List Jobs  (p4 jobs)
http://clrfi.alu.org:8080/?ac=107
http://clrfi.alu.org:8080/?ac=107&jsf=Job&jsf=Status&jsf=Date&jsf=Title&jsf=Area&jsf=Priority&ft=status%3Dopen

111	Describe Job (p4 job)
http://clrfi.alu.org:8080/job000005?ac=111
URLEncode the "@" (%40) or "#" (%23), for example, show contents of head rev

//public/jam/src/Build.com#2 is
http://public.perforce.com:8080/public/jam/src/Build.com%232?ac=64 

For #1
http://public.perforce.com:8080/public/jam/src/Build.com%231?ac=64 

For label @jam2-2-0 it is:
http://public.perforce.com:8080/public/jam/src/Build.com%40jam2-2-0?ac=64 

 

Vinterleir 2007 with Suganuma Sensei   19 Mar 07
[print permalink all comment ]

This is a personal review of the Norwegian Aikido Federation (NAF) Vinterleir (winter school), 15 - 18 March in Tromso. Jessica Loeb and myself formed the London contingent - unfortunately Francis and Craig who were due to come too were not able to in the end.

Tromso is a very nice small town in the north of Norway, well inside the arctic circle. At this time of year there is plenty of snow and yet the daylight is a good 12 hours (it is far enough north to range from almost no daylight mid-winter to no real darkness in summer). There is not a vast amount to Tromso, but one of its attractions is that it seems to take about 10 minutes by car to go anywhere, including being out of the town and in some lovely nature.

The Vinterleir is traditionally taught by Bjorn Eirik Olsen (6th dan), Technical Director of the NAF, but this year, in honour of 30 years of aikido in Tromso (which was the first club in Norway at all), they invited Suganuma Sensei (8th dan). He has been 11 times to Norway but always in the south for the summer camp, and I think he very much enjoyed the different surroundings of snow and nature.

This also worked out very well as they have the Doshu Moriteru Ueshiba leading the summer camp in July this year. That promises to be a rather larger affair than usual!

I have actually been half a dozen times to the Vinterleir - there was a period when I went every year, but the last time was 5 years ago - Benedict who is now 4 and a half years old changed life a little!

As ever, the welcome in Norway is always extremely friendly and the atmosphere is a huge part of the success of the camp. Most people stayed with dojo members which was very nice, and in my case, together with Geirr from Oslo, we were kindly looked after by Ingelill.

It was great to see that Suganuma sensei had brought a large party from Fukuoka - nine in all. As was mentioned at one point in the speeches, it was also very nice that the Japanese group were not just fairly senior teachers, but ranged from a 17 year old to a 70 year old, and beginners to a 6th dan.

Suganuma Sensei

The training itself was excellent as usual - very clear and precise. Suganuma sensei's teaching seems to vary very little from year to year, and is very unflashy on the surface and always seems to be oriented towards the basics in these courses. He is always very clear about techniques and gives lots of smaller pointers to particular things to watch out for ranging from use of atemi to positioning for maximum safety during nikkyo.

There are times when this can almost seem a little boring - and it certainly contrasts with Inaba sensei who spends quite a lot of time talking/lecturing during courses can also give some very interesting food for later thought and reflection (although some people find that very boring!).

Suganuma sensei is very attentive during the practice and frequently helps beginners with great patience, including taking ukemi for them to make sure they have understood.

Over the years it has become an interesting exercise to tease out more from what Suganuma sensei is demonstrating, and I was starting to get a better sense of how he uses his body and energy, and feels the connection with his partner. I still have lots of questions about the "shape" of some of his techniques which I can not replicate without expending a lot more muscle in comparison with other ways of doing the same techniques. Something to work on next time.

One very interesting point for me was when he mentioned how often we tend to provoke a negative response from our partners by inappropriate or hard techniques. This is something I am finding very fruitful for my current practice.

I will certainly be back again, although am interested to know if his teaching varies for example in his home dojo(s), although an interview with him implies that it doesn't. It was very useful to practice a little with Tokuda sensei (6th dan) and get an alternative feel from someone who has trained with Suganuma sensei for many years. A very clear use of energy and sense of sticking and controlling in some techniques. I would love to arrange a visit on a future trip to Japan. For me a lot of the interest is because of the contrast with Inaba sensei - two very inspiring, but very different, teachers.

My Class

Due to the number of people on the course and the size of the main dojo not being sufficient to accommodate everyone, people were divided up into groups and roughly a third went off for a separate class at various points. I was asked to teach one of these and had some fun doing it.

I taught a somewhat relaxed and very much feeling based class rather than technique based, mainly because this is what I am finding most interesting in my personal practice at the moment. We started with some breathing exercises, breathing out and sucking the belly in, and then rotating the hips to drop the tanden/belly forward and using this to allow a fast in-breath, but with no hint of force or strain. It is important to feel as if breathing first into the belly and not fill the upper chest, or at least not let stiffness in there. Also there can be a temptation is to "sniff" which tends to stiffen the body - I find it much easier to do with an open mouth. This exercise certainly seemed a little strange at first, but I then built on it to show some simple techniques, e.g. from katatedori, where I find that an out-breath to absorb your partner's attack/energy, followed by a quick in-breath seems to release some energy upwards which makes it much easier to lift their arm and indeed their energy.

I then focussed on keeping very soft and relaxed arms and shoulders while performing simple koky-ho from ryotedori (2 hand grab) or tenchinage, and allowing the arms to drop in a very relaxed manner without any sense of strain or pushing.

People seemed to enjoy it (after the initial confusion perhaps on the breathing and where I might be going with it!) and I had several appreciative comments afterwards which is always nice. My sources are mainly Inaba sensei's teaching regarding the breathing, and Peter Ralston's book "Zen Body-Being" for a fascinating approach to relaxation and effortless power which I am finding very rewarding to study.

Grading

I missed the kyu grading, but watched the dan grading on Saturday with interest: three shodans and two nidans, of whom I knew 4: Vegard, Steinar, Haakon and Kai Hare. The shodan grading took a good 20 minutes or more - any number of techniques being required to be demonstrated. Somewhat unnecessary in my opinion, but then Inaba sensei does rather tend to an alternative approach others find not rigorous enough. Interestingly the nidan gradings were shorter, since the requirement to work through the basic techniques was dropped in favour of a more free style approach. The candidates all did very well and deservedly passed. A nice surprise at the end was when Stein-Are Engstad was called out - he seemed very surprised and didn't know quite what was going on only to be awarded his yondan.

The Party

As always the party on Saturday night was a great success, and this year was held in Polaria (the Polar Centre) - one of the main tourist attractions in Tromso. The food was delicious and there were some very good speeches around the celebration of 30 years. Birger Sorenson was present who started the club in Tromso as a 4th kyu back in 1977. In that first group were Bjorn Eirik and Kore (both present) so we were treated to a few reminiscences of life back then (including some slightly alternative views of exactly what did go on!), and a little earlier in the evening a slide show of some photos over the years.

Suganuma sensei also spoke, and offered his congratulations. He also mentioned that in the summer camps a few years ago I had asked him the question "What was the most important thing in Aikido?" He answered that it was musubi or connection. A couple of years later, I asked him the same question, not wishing to catch him out, but genuinely interested if he had changed his mind or not. When this was pointed out to him at the time, he saw the funny side, and this year saved me the trouble of asking it again by saying that he still thought musubi the most important thing!

I realised that he had demonstrated the importance of "connections" off the mat as well - it is one of the qualities that make him the very impressive man that he is. You don't build an organisation of 100 or so dojos over 30 years if you can't establish and more importantly maintain good connections with people. There are lots of aikido teachers who are technically very capable, but very few who have the personal qualities and lack of ego of Suganuma sensei. I am sure that his many years of study of zen alongside his aikido has had a large influence.

The dancing afterwards was ably lead as ever by Bjorn Eirik and Birger Sorenson! Having been kicked out at 1am those of us who were left walked through the centre of a still buzzing Tromso, and while the main diehards went to the "Fun Pub", a smaller group of us enjoyed a beer at a slightly quieter local. The morning did however roll around rather early!

Touristy Things

The hosts had arranged a visit on Sunday morning for the Japanese, and Jessica and I tagged along. We took the cable car up the mountain on the mainland (to 420m), and were met by a couple of Sami (Lapp) hosts who gave us a reindeer sleigh ride and some coffee in a "lava" or tepee like tent. It seemed rather touristy and kitsch at first, but thanks to the really friendly and genuine guides turned out to be a lot of fun. The reindeer sleigh rides were only a quick circuit of perhaps 200m, but my ride became a touch more interesting when in response to my question "do you ever race?", much encouragement was given to the reindeer who promptly got over excited and veered off course heading for his mates down the hill. It turns out that reindeer don't like to be touched, and aren't terribly easy to control - starting out consisted of pulling the reindeer forward with them initially resisting, and then turned into a quick sprint and a leap on to the sledge as the reindeer suddenly bounded off!

Our hosts were young guys whose family apparently has some thousands of reindeer in their herd who spend the summer around Tromso (from April onwards), but they winter about 100km further south and inland where the climate is drier and the snow easier to dig for lichen/moss in. They were very friendly and enthusiastic with their explanations on details of dress and life, and it was very enjoyable. The only problem was that our time was a little limited and it would have been great to have a walk after lunch given the great weather up there.

Conclusion

A great course, leaving me feeling rather well exercised, and with some more happy memories to add to the store associated with Norway. Thanks to Bjorn Eirik and all the other members of Reimeikan.

Microsoft, SCM and "Large" Projects   13 Mar 07
[print permalink all comment ]

There have been some interesting posts recently on the challenges faced by Microsoft in developing Vista. It has of course fairly recently made it out of the door which in itself is a major achievement. However, it has become clear that many features originally scheduled for inclusion have been dropped (WinFS for example). The sheer challenge of developing such a vast system is immense, and a key part of any such development effort is the change, configuration and release management.

Some fairly recent blog postings have highlighted some of the issues involved, and seeing as SCM is right in the mix, I though it worth a review.

Overview of Vista - Paul Thurrott's Supersite for Windows

The sheer size and scope of Windows Vista makes it difficult to review, to digest, and to understand. If you step back too far, it doesn't look very impressive at all: It's like XP with a spit-shine. But if you get too close, it's easy to get lost in the seemingly never-ending lists of new features.

A previous article by Paul bemoaned various lost features.

Joel Spolsky wrote an article How many Microsofties does it take to implement the Off menu? reflecting on UI choices and how less is usually more.

This attracted a comment (or was it coincidental): Moishe Lettvin's Windows Shutdown Crapfest posting:

The most frustrating year of those seven was the year I spent working on Windows Vista, which was called Longhorn at the time. I spent a full year working on a feature which should've been designed, implemented and tested in a week..

The key SCM-related part of Moishe's post is:

In small programming projects, there's a central repository of code. Builds are produced, generally daily, from this central repository. Programmers add their changes to this central repository as they go, so the daily build is a pretty good snapshot of the current state of the product..

In Windows, this model breaks down simply because there are far too many developers to access one central repository. So Windows has a tree of repositories: developers check in to the nodes, and periodically the changes in the nodes are integrated up one level in the hierarchy. At a different periodicity, changes are integrated down the tree from the root to the nodes. In Windows, the node I was working on was 4 levels removed from the root. The periodicity of integration decayed exponentially and unpredictably as you approached the root so it ended up that it took between 1 and 3 months for my code to get to the root node, and some multiple of that for it to reach the other nodes. It should be noted too that the only common ancestor that my team, the shell team, and the kernel team shared was the root.

Joel Spolsky then chimed in:

Of all the things broken at Microsoft, the way they use source control on the Windows team is not one of them...

When you're working with source control on a huge team, the best way to organize things is to create branches and sub-branches that correspond to your individual feature teams, down to a high level of granularity. If your tools support it, you can even have private branches for every developer. So they can check in as often as they want, only merging up when they feel that their code is stable. Your QA department owns the "junction points" above each merge. That is, as soon as a developer merges their private branch with their team branch, QA gets to look at it and they only merge it up if it meets their quality bar.

I think there are various interesting things about this discussion.

Managing Complexity and Reducing Dependencies

From the days of The Mythical Man Month: "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later", it has been clear that the challenges of managing large scale systems are many. The whole book is a joy to read, and the Wikipedia articles referenced give a good highlight.

I particularly like the idea of Conceptual Integrity to help keep things simpler both in development and control.

Microsoft's products would appear almost by design to have a very high level of interdependencies between them (although this is changing: "And what happened is as the projects got larger and larger, we introduced too many complex interdependencies on early software, more so than we could really digest throughout the system," said David Treadwell, corporate vice president of the .Net Developer Platform group).

One advantage of the dependencies is that if your customer buys one product then they pretty much have to take a slew of accompanying products too.

Branches and Sub-Branches - Your SCM Tool

Back to Joel's comment that the best way to organise things is branches and sub-branches. This is a fairly classical SCM approach to the problem which has many benefits.

It is interesting to note that Joel mentions SourceDepot which Microsoft uses internally, and which is a re-badged version of Perforce circa 1999 (when win2k was in development), with some Windows specific improvements such as memory usage, but from what I can gather no fundamental algorithm improvements. Perforce of that era only had the ability to easily propagate changes between directly related parent-child branches. Things like grand-parent <-> grand-child propagation skipping over intervening parent were possible but tricky - the tool didn't default to handling it. (Note that I am interested in the original comment about there being a tree of repositories, as opposed to a tree of branches - if the former, then it makes things much more difficult to improve merging across separate repositories).

Microsoft's new Team Foundation Server tool (uses a similar branching model and terminology but totally re-architected it would appear), does not yet support good common ancestor detection either.

Over the years Perforce has addressed this in various ways, and from 2005 it is working well and with reasonable performance at large sites. Thus in Perforce you can pull changes from one sub-branch to another without going via the parent, and changes propagated back to the common parent will not cause major problems for either sub-branch. There still remains a very large question as to whether "uncontrolled" propagation of changes is a good idea (as Laura Wingerd puts it - "why we don't allow driving through hedges" - Ch7), and my advice is certainly to think carefully and plan your normal strategy (with tightly locked down exceptions maybe permissible). It still comes back to managing complexity: the more you allow changes to be propagated all over the place in an ad-hoc fashion, the harder it is to track what has gone one.

As mentioned by Joel, Accurev is a very interesting looking tools and their stream browser certainly looks attractive, and has raised the bar in terms of features for the SCM vendors. My impression is that Perforce still has the advantage in terms of scalability (see Google paper) and performance, but I would certainly put Accurev on my evaluation list if advising a client in this area.

3rd BCS CMSG Conference - 15 & 16 May 2007   13 Mar 07
[print permalink all comment ]

The 3rd BCS CMSG Conference is now open for registrations with a good lineup of speakers, and an excellent looking venue.

A number of people commented on problems getting to Cambridge (not so convenient from various parts of the UK), so hopefully Oxford will fit the bill a little better. In addition, we can up the budget a little for a slgithly more commercial venue.

Some other differences this time around:

  • PB Projects is doing the bulk of the heavy lifting in terms of organising details etc - yes it costs us, but it seems to be working fairly well. and takes some (though not all - e.g. sorting out timetable/speakers) of the load off the committee.
  • Only just realised that offering a group discount might help bring in a few more people - we more interested in having more people there than making a vast profit (haven't yet managed to get the committee fact finding trip to the Caribbean off the ground to spend our current surplus, but am working on it...)

So, the first registrations are already in, and look forward to plenty more!

Meanwhile, am hopefully getting a little breather to allow rather more blogging than of late - have a stack of topics piled up awaiting that spare moment!

 

 

Copyright © 2008 Robert Cowham