Bradley M . Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Adam Turoff wrote:
>
>> *: Sarathy tells me that Perforce sucks at maintaining thousands of
>> anonymous checkouts, while CVS doesn't mind at all.
This is a feature of perforce that is useful - it can warn you that
you are about to change a file that someone else is already working on.
>> This is a perfect
>> reason to use anon CVS vs. Perforce, but does not require that Perforce be
>> ditched in favor of CVS, only that an anon CVS gateway be maintained.
>
>Will this anonymous gateway have all the relevant meta-data?
I have scripts that can maintain _most_ of the meta-data between ClearCase
and perforce, all that gets lost (as I recall) is:
perforce -> clearcase - which deltas were part of the same 'change'
although I could 'label' the files on the clearcase side.
clearcase -> perforce - perforce has no directory versioning so files
that are renamed are not tracked. (And you can end up with empty directories
if all content gets moved.)
>Will it look,
>to a user of the gateway, like the live repository is CVS when they go
>hunting through metadata?
I see no reason why the perforce changes cannot be 'checked in' to CVS
one-by-one so that CVS builds its own representation of the change history.
Going the other way the issue (if my ClearCase experience is any use here)
will be collecting the files that belong in one "change".
>
>--
>Bradley M. Kuhn - http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.0.2 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
>iD8DBQE5uQYe53XjJNtBs4cRAniUAKCATJnMcWCUQdecoXWS8eHlK80jSQCfXy6l
>qv3Z2Og703Djz3MSbEZRbWA=
>=T671
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Nick Ing-Simmons
