Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-grimoire - Re: [SM-Grimoire] Smaller devel grimoire

sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Discussion of Spells and Grimoire items

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>
  • To: Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Smaller devel grimoire
  • Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 12:04:31 +1000

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Straight away, this suggestion was intended to simplify things, I have to bow
to Tony's knowledge and say it would appear not to so we should drop it.
But i would still like to clarify a few points for my own sake :)
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 03:03, Tony Smith wrote:
> > Two quick questions Tony
> > 1) if a spell is added in devel, worked on, then /integrated/ to test,
> > then the devel version is deleted won't the test version keep all the
> > previous revision history ?
>
> Yes, but the next time you try to edit that spell in devel you have to add
> it again and then when you come to integrate that change into test,
> Perforce (rightly) sees it as an entirely new file that just happens to
> have the same name as an old one and doesn't consider any previous
> integration history between the two files. Hello baseless merge...
>

I meant integrate/ branch the test spell back into devel if it was needed
(not
p4 add )but that should only be for a major update or rewrite. I thought
integrating/ branching kept the history ?

> Basically you can't have it both ways. Either devel is a branch of test and
> is maintained in a way that is compatible with the maintenance of test, or
> devel is an entirely separate codeline. If you treat devel/test as separate
> unrelatated codelines, then yes, you can "p4 edit" and copy files across to
> propagate changes, but you're just making a process that was automatic
> manual. The onus is now on you to track what has been copied over and what
> hasn't. In that case, I wish you luck - you'll need it

I did think devel would be seperate, it would only be a depot for works in
progress. But if you say it would be messy to try to "integrate" from a
non-existent branch then i understand.

> > If cvs syncing will trample all over our revision history anyway, why go
> > out of our way to save it just to lose it later ?
>
> What makes you think a CVS sync will do that? I'm not a fan of trashing
> history, so I would do my best to avoid it in a sync.
>

I understood it to be a fact from many comments lately. I guess i shouldn't
believe everything i hear on the internet :)
Hamish
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/aRKv8fSufZR6424RAtJ+AKCBfrQfyZcFTjXl6GdWKjSn0GMiXwCfSQo0
Ro8QHxn0jq3uNukiywnDuM4=
=SYNh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page