[p4] integrating when destination has been deleted

[Sweeney, Tony]

This is the approach recommended by Laura Wingerd in "Practical
Perforce".  See page 225, "Keeping the branch view up to date".  The
money quote is:

<Fair use>
"In other words, when files in MAIN are renamed, moved, added or
deleted, we'll have to update the REL2-MAIN branch view.  This will make
it fairly painless for developers working in REL2 to integrate their
changes to MAIN."
</Fair use>

Tony.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes -- Juvenal VI, 347-8  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com 
> [mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com] On Behalf Of 
> Ken.Williams at thomson.com
> Sent: 30 August 2006 15:09
> To: medellre at yahoo.com; perforce-user at perforce.com
> Subject: Re: [p4] integrating when destination has been deleted
> 
> Maybe just remove those classes from the 1.1.0 branch spec?
> 
>  -Ken 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com
> > [mailto:perforce-user-bounces at perforce.com] On Behalf Of 
> Rene Medellin
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:48 AM
> > To: perforce-user at perforce.com
> > Subject: [p4] integrating when destination has been deleted
> > 
> > hi,
> > 
> > i have the following scenario:
> > 
> > 1) developer edits a class in //depot/project/1.0.0 branch.
> > 
> > 2) branches 1.1.0 and 1.2.0 exist downstream from 1.0.0
> > 
> > 3) i have a night script that i run that iterates through the 
> > downstream branches looking for pending integrations. it 
> sends a nice 
> > reminder to developers to deal with their integrations.
> > 
> > 4) developer claims that the classes modified in 1.0.0 have been 
> > already deleted in 1.1.0 and subsequent releases so they 
> don't "need" 
> > to be integrated. i tell them that that may be so but when 
> running 'p4 
> > integrate -b 1.1.0' p4's branch consistency check still 
> requires those 
> > files be integrated forward (so to speak). after resolve, they can 
> > just delete them again.
> > 
> > 5) developer grumbles that she'll need to continue to make 
> changes to 
> > 1.0.0 for some time and that she'll have to keep doing this 
> > integrate-resolve-delete dance in all the downstream branches until 
> > 1.0.0 no longer needs to be maintained.
> > 
> > any suggestions for how else to handle this?
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> > Rene Medellin
> > marketaxess.com
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com 
> _______________________________________________
> > perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com 
> > http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com 
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
>