I am looking for best practices using branches in RCS.
I had read the man page for rcs and ci and also browsed at the following links:
http://www.gnu.org/software/rcs/manual/html_node/Concepts.html
http://www.gnu.org/software/rcs/manual/html_node/Quick-tour.html
Suppose i have revision 1.3 on tip of the trunk.
I now want to change file 1.2 (as 1.3 have several other changes I cannot yet use).
I understand I can create branch on revision 1.2 using ci -r1.2.1
My question are the follows:
1. Do I need to set a lock on the file? If so, on which revision?
2. If no lock set, I cannot use -u flag in order to keep the file in my local dir. In case I wish to do so, is it still possible without co the file again?
Side note: I feel RCS does not suit my company needs however migrating to another system is not my decision to make, so currently I need to keep working with it.
I'm looking for much the same thing, but seeing you've had no answers, I'll offer my current practice:
I use branches for development, not for keeping different variants going in parallel. The trunk is reserved for my best, presumably working, code on the and I try not to check in anything there that might break it. I branch the code when I want to start a line of development that will take some time, break it for a while, is an experiment I might have to be abandon, etc.
To start a new line of development I change the default branch to a new branch off the trunk rev that's to be the base of my code, and force a checkin onto that branch, with:
rcs -b1.2.1 foo.cpp
ci -f1.2.1 -l foo.cpp
Now I can dive in to developing the branch, and my next check-ins will go onto the new branch instead of onto the trunk. Whether you lock a revision or not is only relevant to whether you intend to modify the working file.
You're correct that you can't keep both revisions, trunk-tip and branch-tip in the same folder; they have the same file name. But you can check out one of them with a -p switch which forces the output to stdout (instead of to a local file) which you can then redirect into a sub-folder, or to a local file with a unique name.
Related
To automate Perforce staging, I face a dilemma that add and edit are two different ops and they work on files of different SCM status, i.e., "already under SCM or not".
This is different from git where staging is uniformly add.
I'd like to have something like pseudo-code:
filepath = '/path/to/myfile.ext'
if p4.is_under_scm(filepath):
p4.edit(filepath)
else:
p4.add(filepath)
or better yet, simply hide the detail with:
p4.staging(filepath)
How should I achieve this with calling p4 command-line program?. I'm not using any programming-language bindings right now.
You might want to use the p4 reconcile command, which automatically opens workspace files for an action that matches their current state relative to the depot.
Keep in mind if you go this route that reconcile operates only on unopened files that are different from the depot version, so it's meant to be used after making local modifications (this is different from the standard workflow where you open a file with p4 edit prior to editing it -- the idea is that you use reconcile to fix things after the fact if you've had to work disconnected or something like that). In addition, if you change your mind about what you're doing with the file (e.g. you delete the local copy after it's been opened for edit but before you submit), you may need to revert -k it and re-reconcile to ensure that it's open for the correct action.
For something that matches the pseudocode in your question, you probably want the p4 have command, which tells you if a local file corresponds to a depot revision (and if so which one). p4 edit only works on a file that you have, whereas p4 add would be for a file in your workspace that does not correspond to an existing depot file. (A very subtle point here -- it's possible for the file to map to a depot file despite not having been synced from the depot! If that's the case you'll hit a conflict when you go to submit your add.)
How to prevent checking out / changing one binary file in different branches of the same content. Situations like: designers have edited some game level (*.umap binary file) in their branch. Programmes changed same file in their branch (for example - added some blueprint on this game level). So now we have three different versions of this file, one in master branch before all changes, one in designers branch without programmes changes, one in programmes branch without designers changes. And now we must merge designers changes and programmes changes into master branch, but we cant.
So the question is - how to organise right this situations? Maybe we can setup perforce to checkout binary file in multiply branches at the same time, or something like this? Thanks...
There are a couple of different ways to think about this.
If you don't want work to continue/begin in one branch, until changes from another branch have been merged in to it, you can use Helix (Perforce) Protections, to give users read-only access to the branch.
This means they will be able to open files for edit, but won't be able to submit their changes.
More info about protections is here:
https://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4sag/chapter.security.html
The protections would need to be changed, when you are ready for work on the other branches to start.
If you want a file to be automatically checked out on all branches, each time someone checks it out on any branch where it exists, you would currently have to script this.
You could do it using the broker and a workspace for every branch, that has a view that just includes the files you want to be checked out everywhere.
The files would then need to be checked out in these workspaces and locked, so that other users can't submit to these branches until the locks are removed.
This is not trivial and may have a performance impact.
You might also be able to do it using pre-command triggers, if your server version is new enough.
If you want to go in to more detail about any of the above, I recommend you contact Perforce Technical Support.
Hope this helps,
Jen.
Is it possible to create branches in Perforce in a similar style to Git? I.e. without creating a new folder.
I would prefer for my client to manage the branches transparently whilst I work against a single copy of the directory tree on disk.
It seems awfully wasteful for the client to create an exact copy of the entire tree if you're only modifying say a couple of files. I much prefer Git's workflow in this regard.
If it's not possible using straight Perforce I'm happy to move to GitSwarm.
For info I'm running Perforce version 2015.1/1233444.
Possible yes, but with the centralized version of the system it involves a bit of 'magic'. Basically, the branch part doesn't need to involve the client at all anymore. Take a peek at p4 populate. That'll create another folder on the server, but won't do anything locally. Then you can edit your client workspace to map the branched files instead of the trunk files, and it'll just re-sync over top the files on your disk.
Now, having said that, if you wanted to take a look at our DVCS version of working, then you can just do "p4 switch -c " and it'll create a new branch locally, switch your workspace over to it (shelving any open current work in the process) and away you go.
My original answer was deleted because I thought a link was a better idea than repeating content. My mistake.
At any rate, I believe the DVCS features in Perforce Helix supply exactly the sort of thing you're after. In a blog I wrote in the subject (link here for reference) I explained how to create a new in-place branch with a single command:
p4 switch -c newBranchName
That will create a new branch with the name "newBranchName" and save any existing work in progress by default. To discover on which branch you're working you can use the switch command with the list argument as follows:
p4 switch -l
That would show you output like this, the asterisk showing that you're now working on the newBranchName branch.
newBranchName *
main
You can switch back and forth as you like, changing contexts as needed as often as you like. Your work in progress will continue to be saved on each branch in progress. When you're ready to merge your work back to main and push it back to the server, you can use the following sequence of commands:
p4 switch main
p4 merge --from newBranchName
p4 resolve –as
The first command switches back to the main branch, the second merges your work from the newly created branch into main, and the third resolves any potential conflicts automatically. If there are any conflicts that can't automatically be merged, then you can use the usual commands to walk through the resolution process.
Alternately, if you prefer to stick with Git, you can use that directly with our Helix Versioning Engine through our Git Fusion technology or use Git directly with our new GitSwarm technology. That is a pretty amazing option (in my opinion) as it makes it possible to mirror content automatically and bidirectionally between GitSwarm and the back end server. That way you get all the features of Git with GitSwarm (which itself is based on GitLab) and all the goodies from the rest of Helix.
Hope that helps!
If you use streams (Perforce's "managed" version of a branch, as opposed to doing completely ad hoc inter-file branching with arbitrary paths), it's pretty simple. As P4Gabe said, "switch -c" is a one-shot option on a local server.
On a shared server it's only a little more complicated because you have to do the "populate" explicitly (this is to keep naive users from accidentally branching lots of files lots of times on a shared server), but it's still only a few steps and it's something that you as an advanced user could script easily:
p4 stream -P (current stream) -t development (new stream name)
p4 populate -r -S (new stream name)
p4 switch (new stream name)
The equivalent is possible using ad hoc ("classic") branches as well if you have a good understanding of how client views work -- use populate to create the new branch, modify your client view to map the new branch into the namespace currently occupied by the old branch, and sync.
This blog post on what exactly "p4 switch" does might help if you're trying to engineer your own solution that's similar-to-but-not-quite the "switch" command: https://www.perforce.com/blog/150428/p4-switch-switching-it
Specifically I have a repository setup in Launchpad. I need to remove this repository but didn't find any link to do that from launchpad website. I am wondering whether I could do it on my local branch using "bzr". Or I am missing something from the launchpad website to remove it.
To have your entire project deleted from Launchpad, you have to post a "question" on this page:
https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad/+addquestion
Yeah it's weird. But this seems to be the official way. If you search for the keywords "delete project" on this page you will find many many similar requests:
https://answers.launchpad.net/launchpad
Make sure to include a detailed explanation why you want to do this and that you are aware of the consequences. Otherwise you will get a response along the lines "the community might still use the source code you want to delete" and so on.
Of course they are right, and you should carefully consider whether you really want to remove code that other folks might be using and linking to.
If you are sure you want the project gone, then you can reduce the turnaround time with the Launchpad team by first deleting all your branches. You might not be able to delete the trunk, in that case you can try to force-overwrite it with an empty branch, using these steps:
bzr init empty
cd empty
touch empty.txt
bzr add
bzr commit -m 'dummy commit'
bzr push lp:PROJECT --overwrite
Of course, replace PROJECT with the name of your project. All these steps are necessary to empty the branch. You cannot simply push an empty branch, Bazaar will tell you that No new revisions or tags to push. and the branch will be untouched. You need a completely new revision, like the dummy revision in this example.
If your project has no meaningful source code in it, the Launchpad team should not have any objections to delete it, so you can reduce the turnaround time.
I have local folder that is branch from formal_versions.
My workflow is:
Mkae changes and than commit them
The integrator merge them in his local branch.
The integrator push its local branch to formal_versions
I use pull to make my local branch identical to formal_versions
This is working fine.
However what should I do in the following scenario:
After pull from formal_versions , I compile the code. As a result , some workspace and obj file are changed (I.E date and time of compilation) and of cource , bazaar explorer inform me on modified files
I again want to make my branch mirror of formal version. What should I do?
A. Why using pull again says that "nothing to pull" even if
I use --overwrite switch ? it is suppose to make my local branch as mirror of the pulled branch...
B. Is my only option is to use revert working tree?
It is generally considered best practice (as well as good for one's sanity) not to version files that are the result of the build process. Executables, shared libraries, and even source files generated from by a 4GL are examples. You can ignore files by using bzr ignore <pattern>, for example bzr ignore *.exe. If the files are already versioned, you will also have to remove them using bzr remove.
bzr pull says there is nothing to pull because the formal version has had no new commits since your last pull.
If you must version the files in question, bzr revert is the only way I know of when bzr pull does not find new revisions. If there had been new revisions in the formal branch, the files should be updated (and will potentially be reported as conflicts).