[p4] branchspec reversed or not?
richardw at cobaltgroup.com
Tue Dec 20 09:46:39 PST 2005
While I don't know her exact reasoning for it, here is my guess:
According to her best practices, merges should always go "down". So, all of
your merging should go from v2.0 to main. If you consider that creating the
initial branch is a one-time operation, and the merges might happen many
times to keep main up-to-date with the 2.0 bug fixes, then it makes sense to
use the '-r' a single time and then not have to worry about it for the
multiple merges that may be done by multiple people over time.
From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com
[mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com]On Behalf Of Dan Halbert
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 9:34 AM
To: Perforce-User List
Subject: [p4] branchspec reversed or not?
We are about to do our first major branch in Perforce. I read the
Perforce technote NOTE004, which explains things quite clearly. We are
branching from "main" to "v2.0". I can set up a branch spec, called,
say, "main-v2.0" with a view with lines that look like:
However, I also have a copy of Laura Wingerd's new book, Practical
Perforce. She calls branch specs "branch views", and her examples are
all set up in reverse. She might have a branch spec named "v2.0-main",
with view lines like:
She would do "p4 integ -r -b v2.0-main" in order to handle this reversal.
So, now I'm confused. It seems as if she's introducing a new
"Better/Best Practices in Perforce" suggestion. She prefers the reversed
branchspecs, but doesn't really say why that I can see. I'd like to the
"best thing" going forward. It doesn't really matter so much in this
case, but can anyone suggestion what her motivation is here?
perforce-user mailing list - perforce-user at perforce.com
More information about the perforce-user