cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Best practice cutover strategy for a (N+1) landscape where ChaRM (w SolDoc integration)?

michael_sullivan
Discoverer
0 Kudos

My customer is entertaining the adoption of an N+1 scenario to support quicker/multiple project completion. The customer also has integrated Solution Documentation with the ChaRM design. Enhanced Retrofit will be used to synchronize the dual development systems. I found the following diagram in the Sol Man Wiki under for Process Management --> Execute Projects in SAP Solution Manager 7.2

Does this represent the Best Practice recommendation for the Cut-over to production for the development project transports, especially considering the documentation integration and the need for the development branch documents to move to the production branch when the project ChaRM documents are set to IMPORTED INTO PRODUCTION? The transport path for project changes would be:

DEV(Proj) -> Pre-TST (Proj) -> TST (Proj) -> TST (Maint) - PRD ?

DEV(Maint) would be re-built manually with the transports and system of ownership would be changed manually for workbench objects from DEV(Proj) to DEV(Maint) ?

Years ago, the recommended path for the Project transports would have included the DEV(Maint) system so no system rebuilds would be required. It was even suggested/recommended to perform a re-pack of the transports to the DEV(Maint) system in order to speed up the start of the next project in the project path. Is this still recommended or does this create problems for the solution documentation processing if the Project landscape has a different production system than the Maintenance landscape?

What is the best practice cutover strategy for an N+1 landscape utilizing ChaRM to track both system and documentation changes in both the maintenance and the development branch and Enhanced Retrofit to synchronize the dual development systems in the two branches?

Accepted Solutions (0)

Answers (0)