On Sun, July 20, 2008 1:21 pm, David Brown wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 01:09:59PM -0700, Lan Barnes wrote: > >>p4's change sets aren't change sets? I'm interested. How not? > > It depends on how you define a change set. They are atmoic and group > commits that are logically oriented within the depot. However, their > existence seems to have been forgotten by much of the rest of P4. Labels > tag individual file versions, and often don't correspond with a single > changeset at all. >
They aren't meant to. A different set of metadata altogether. >>p4 lets you rearrange directory trees (alas, empty dirs need a stub to >>stay alive). Again, am I missing something? p4 is a branch-on-checkout >> and >>does support branches. I'm _sure_ of that. > > P4 supports a very limited notion of branch, similar to the branch by > copying notion of SVN. It very much is not branch-on-checkout, and must > be > an explicit step done that changes the name of the entity in the repo. No, it really is BOC. Any sandbox may be checked in as a branch. > This merely makes them expensive and inconvenient. The reason I don't > call > them real branches is that P4 only tracks branches on a per file basis > (again completely forgetting about change sets). > > This tends to work reasonably well for branches that don't differ much, > don't live all that long, and are then integrated back into the mainline. > Long lived branches, where lots of changes happen, become more and more > difficult to manage and integrate. This strikes me as a merge issue, which is a puzzle all its own (depending on the common ancestor(s)). > > That branch names and directory names share the same namespace means that > P4 can't tell the difference between a file rename and a branch. So, if > you have branched a tree that has renames in it, you basically have to > track down what happened, and "do the right thing", for every single file. > You're doing it wrong. Don't do an add, integrate it. That keeps the history. >>Methinks I'm misinterpreting something. Did you mean svn rather than p4? > > Hard to say :-) P4 and SVN share so much of the same bad design. I > suspect that P4 had a lot of influence on the SVN design, but people don't > want to say that. > > David I believe they have a totally different schema/structure inside. I can't prove it. -- Lan Barnes SCM Analyst Linux Guy Tcl/Tk Enthusiast Biodiesel Brewer -- KPLUG-List@kernel-panic.org http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
