[p4] Who deleted a client

Stephen Vance steve at vance.com
Thu Oct 4 18:08:52 PDT 2001


At 05:36 PM 10/4/2001 -0500, Dave Lewis wrote:
>   >
>   > Don't draw directly from the third party drop tree.  Rather branch the
>   > appropriate library version into the build branch.  This obviously 
> requires
>   > a branch for each build that you want to do on a regular basis, but 
> since
>   > the builds should correspond to maintained products or product versions,
>   > that shouldn't be an imposition.
>
>Well, contrast doing a branch every 2 weeks to changing a line in a client
>spec...  It doesn't seem like a big win.  Its a little harder to know which
>version you're using with the branch method.

You only need to do a branch if you need to preserve both builds.  If you 
simply need to update the build to use a newer version of the library, then 
it's just an integration from the newer version.

You're right that it's harder to know which version, though.  Even if you 
label the third party library versions, that's not what's reported in an 
integration history.

The win is derived from the fact that, at least in many environments, 
branch specs are more of an administrative operation, while client specs 
are almost always a user operation.

Using the "change user to admin and lock it" strategy is equally valid for 
both approaches.  With the branching approach, you can also use protections 
to protect the target codeline, regardless of changes to the branch spec.

>[Of course, we keep the client specs checked in as text files]
>
>I'll think about it though.
>
>dave
>_______________________________________________
>perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
>http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user

Stephen Vance
mailto:steve at vance.com
http://www.vance.com/




More information about the perforce-user mailing list