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: Tony Smith <tony AT smee.org>
  • To: Hamish Greig <hgreig AT bigpond.net.au>, Grimoire <sm-grimoire AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Cc:
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Grimoire] Smaller devel grimoire
  • Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:16:04 +0100

On Thursday 18 September 2003 3:04 am, Hamish Greig wrote:
> 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 ?

You could force a re-branch of test into devel, then edit devel, and back
integrate it and delete devel. I believe that would work, but it would be
ugly and prone to error. I'd need a pretty good driving reason to advocate
going down that road.

> > 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.

You can't integrate from something that doesn't exist, so I didn't mean that.
I meant that efficient and correct integration relies on a relationship
between the branches you're working with. If the relationship breaks down,
then so does your integration. I guess it's the difference between a long
term relationship and serial monogamy - in one, the relationship is well
understood by both parties, in the other they keep having to learn about each
other all over again.

> > > 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 :)

:-)

Tony





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page