[p4] Convert static to automatic labels

Jamie.Echlin at barclayscapital.com Jamie.Echlin at barclayscapital.com
Thu Aug 20 07:53:32 PDT 2009


Hi Guillaume,

> I'd be interested to know how you intersect those sets.

I simply subtract the changelist set from the labelled set (using
Set::Scalar), if the labelled set is then empty I assume it's safe to
convert. I believe it's an identical to your method below.

I already restrict the view as much as possible. Where the labelled set
comes from different parts of the depot, and the label spec has more
than one line, then I get the deepest path possible. What is difficult
is getting the optimum view spec (possibly including minus lines), where
you are trading off lines in the spec for selecting more than you need
to. (You could off course list every file in the view for the auto
label, but then you are just swapping db.labels space for db.domain
space).

It's a tough problem and I don't think it's one I'm interested in trying
to solve, unless I knew that getting this table size down (it's about
45% of the total db) would have an overall beneficial performance
effect.

BTW earlier, I said: "The table consists of 391M records but only 3M
records were reported." I wrote the mail before I let the script finish,
and I was only sampling every 100th records, so this is a non-problem.

jamie


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: G Barthelemy [mailto:gb.perforce at googlemail.com] 
> Sent: 20 August 2009 15:11
> To: Echlin, Jamie: IT (LDN)
> Cc: perforce-user at perforce.com
> Subject: Re: [p4] Convert static to automatic labels
> 
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 11:20 AM, 
> <Jamie.Echlin at barclayscapital.com> wrote:
> 
> > I'm looking at converting the static to auto labels where possible.
> >
> > If s1 is entirely a subset of s2, this can be converted to an 
> > automatic label. s1 and s2 are not always the same - s2 may 
> > incorporate more revisions than s1, the labelled set. That 
> is one of 
> > the drawbacks of this approach. It will often include deleted files 
> > which sometimes seem not to be labelled, and may include 
> other files too.
> 
> I'd be interested to know how you intersect those sets.
> 
> When you are in the situation where s2 incorporates more 
> revisions than s1, then it's time to restrict the scope of 
> the View of the automatic label. The major difficulty in this 
> exercise is of course not to just use a huge list of files, 
> or the point of the automatic label gets somewhat lost, but 
> the optimum label view instead, possibly with exclusion rules 
> if adequate.
> 
> But ignoring this difficulty, a method I use is this:
> 
> 1- Setup a temporary client
> p4 client tmprp
> 
> 2- Populate that client's have table exclusively with files 
> labelled by STATIC
> p4 sync -k //depot/project/... at STATIC
> 
> 3- What's the contender changelist for our automatic label?
> p4 changes -m1 -s submitted //depot/project/... at tmprp Change 
> 123456 on 2009/08/20 by me at client 'Blah'
> 
> 4- Now what would happen if I sync'ed the client with that change ?
> p4 sync -nk //depot/project/... at 123456
> //depot/project/... at 123456 - file(s) up-to-date.
> 
> That's good. Here STATIC can be replaced by an automatic 
> label with View set to //depot/project/... and Revision set 
> to 123456 (although to be fair, here we are assuming that 
> STATIC doesn't scope out of //depot/project/... and that we 
> could try and determine if a deeper path would do... I assume 
> that those are the cases that your script picks up.
> 
> Now if you had any files returned by the last sync, there are 
> 2 scenarios:
> 
> a- the files labelled by STATIC are not contemporaneous. The 
> label shall remain STATIC, that's what they are for.
> OR
> b- we are in the case where the set labelled by STATIC is 
> smaller than that of its contemporaneous changelist 123456. 
> That's when we need to restrict the View of the automatic 
> label to exclude (or not include) the files returned by the 
> last sync. For me, that last operation is still a manual 
> process but it could be scripted(*)
> 
> (*) What would be great would be a Perforce sub-command that, 
> given a list of file revisions would return the optimal pair of (View,
> Changelist) that would pick up those revisions, with the 
> option of using exclusion rules or not.
> 
> --
> Guillaume
> 
_______________________________________________

This e-mail may contain information that is confidential, privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, do not duplicate or redistribute it by any means. Please delete it and any attachments and notify the sender that you have received it in error. Unless specifically indicated, this e-mail is not an offer to buy or sell or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities, investment products or other financial product or service, an official confirmation of any transaction, or an official statement of Barclays. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Barclays. This e-mail is subject to terms available at the following link: www.barcap.com/emaildisclaimer. By messaging with Barclays you consent to the foregoing.  Barclays Capital is the investment banking division of Barclays Bank PLC, a company registered in England (number 1026167) with its registered office at 1 Churchill Place, London, E14 5HP.  This email may relate to or be sent from other members of the Barclays Group.
_______________________________________________




More information about the perforce-user mailing list