[p4] Difference in integration behavior in 2006.2

[Stephen Vance]

The short answer is that the algorithm was substantially rewritten in 
2006.2. I don't know the exact details there.

In your example, when CL70972 was integrated, was it done as a selective 
integration (e.g. @70972, at 70972) or was it done as a regular 
integration? If selective, the it wouldn't have included revision 7 
implicitly.

Steve

Leonard, William C wrote:
> We recently upgraded our server from 2005.2 to 2006.2, and now we're
> seeing some unexpected behavior in integrations.  We periodically run a
> report to determine if there are any changes in one codeline that need
> to be propagated to other codelines.  We have a fairly static
> propagation path, so it's fairly easy (though not computationally cheap)
> to run the report.  We're now getting reports that changes need to be
> propagated from a long time ago, which previous reports (on the old
> server version) did not mention.  That in itself wouldn't be bad, if the
> old version were simply missing a valid case.  But we're seeing a lot of
> cases that look incorrect under the new server.
>
> I'll give a concrete example to illustrate.  Changelist 69970 created
> revision 7 of the file
> //depot/GTechnology/Development/Dev9.3.2EPack1/Software/Implementation/S
> electSetPipe/src/selectsetpipe.cpp
> by an integration from another codeline.  It is a "bookkeeping" change,
> in that no actual change to the file resulted; it just records the fact
> that a change in another codeline could safely be ignored when
> propagating it to this codeline.  Revision 7 was never explicitly
> integrated to any other codeline.
>
> Next, changelist 70972 created revision 8 of that file with several
> changes in it.  CL 70972 was integrated to
> //depot/GTechnology/Development/Main/Software/Implementation/SelectSetPi
> pe/src/selectsetpipe.cpp#65
> in CL 71026 as a "copy from".  Consequently, revision 7 is implicitly
> included in that integration, although the integration history for the
> target file lists only revision 8 as the source.  (This seems like
> incorrect bookkeeping to me.  If a change is integrated by accepting the
> source, shouldn't that implicitly include any previous revisions not
> already integrated?)
>
> The revision 8 change was further propagated to
> //depot/GTechnology/Development/Dev9.4.0/Software/Implementation/SelectS
> etPipe/src/selectsetpipe.cpp#4
> in CL 71132 by doing a merge.  That change was then propagated back to
> //depot/GTechnology/Development/Main/Software/Implementation/SelectSetPi
> pe/src/selectsetpipe.cpp#66
> in CL 75272 as a "copy from".  All of the above was done with the
> Perforce 2005.2 server.
>
> Meanwhile, we've changed the order in which we propagate changes.  Files
> in the //depot/GTechnology/Development/Dev9.3.2EPack1 codeline are
> propagated directly to the //depot/GTechnology/Development/Dev9.4.0
> codeline, and then to //depot/GTechnology/Development/Main.  The report
> we run checks to make sure there are no changes in
> //depot/GTechnology/Development/Dev9.3.2EPack1 that need to be promoted
> to //depot/GTechnology/Development/Dev9.4.0.  It now says that revision
> 7 has not been integrated in that codeline.  When I do the integration,
> it says there are 0 changes between source and base, and 70 changes
> between target and base.  That's all believable, but why is it now
> reporting this?
>
> Technically, I guess you could say the integration history does not
> indicate that revision 7 has ever been integrated.  However, the "copy
> from" done in CL 71026 did implicitly include that revision; shouldn't
> Perforce recognize that?
>
> What changed in the integration algorithm that caused 2005.2 to think
> this change *had* been integrated, but 2006.2 doesn't?
>
> Thanks!
>
> William Leonard
> Executive Manager
> Security, Government & Infrastructure (SG&I) Division
> Intergraph Corporation
> P.O. Box 6695, Huntsville, AL 35824-0695 USA 
> P 1.256.730.8167   F 1.256.730.1717
> bill.leonard at intergraph.com, www.intergraph.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> perforce-user mailing list  -  perforce-user at perforce.com
> http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user
>
>