Questions regarding ChaRM and Supported Landscapes
In working through the configuration of a ChaRM prototype, I noticed the following comments in the IMG documentation.
"We recommend that you assign exactly one development system to a
production system, and that these two systems are connected by exactly
one unique transport track.
If a development system and a production system are connected by more
than one transport track, this may lead to inconsistencies within the
transport distribution. This type of transport configuration cannot be
supported by Change Request Management, and may cause inconsistencies
within the tools involved."
Our company implementation partner has proposed a four tiered
landscape consisting of systems DEC (development), QEC (test), CEC
(stage or pre-production) and PEC (production). It has been proposed
that client specific configuration be performed in DEC client 110 and
ABAP development be performed in DEC client 120. Transports would move
to QEC client 110, then to CEC client 110 and finally to PEC client 100.
Question 1. Is this client strategy supportable with chaRM?
The implementation partner has also proposed a second set of clients in
the same landscape, with client specific configuration to be performed
to be performed in DEC client 210 and transported to QEC client 210,
CEC client 200 and finally to PEC client 200.
Question 2. This appears to violate the constraint of having more than
one transport track. Is this type of client strategy supportable with
Question 3. The implementation partner feels that it will be a
requirement that additional configuration of ChaRM be performed so that
there is an approval required for before a transport move to QEC,
before a move to CEC and before a move to PEC.