From: Jing Xue <jingxue@digizenstudio.com>
To: David Brown <git@davidb.org>
Cc: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>,
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>, dhruva <dhruva@ymail.com>,
GIT SCM <git@vger.kernel.org>, Simon Hausmann <simon@lst.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Optional shrinking of RCS keywords in git-p4
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:58:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080916125856.GB3069@jabba.hq.digizenstudio.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080916041201.GA25033@linode.davidb.org>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 09:12:01PM -0700, David Brown wrote:
> A simple way to be paranoid would be something (shell-ish) like:
>
> p4 print filename | collapse-keywords | git hash-object --stdin
>
> and make sure that is the version we think the file should have
> started with. I think we're really just making sure we didn't miss a
> P4 change that someone else made underneath, and we're about to back
> out.
> Even this isn't robust from p4's point of view. The p4 model is to do
> a 'p4 edit' on the file, and then the later 'p4 submit' will give an
> error if someone else has updated the file. This would require using
> p4's conflict resolution, and I'm guessing someone using git-p4 would
> rather abort the submit and rebase.
How about collapsing the keywords in the _p4_ version after "p4 edit"
but before applying the patch, and just "p4 submit" the collapsed
version if patching succeeds? As pointed out earlier in this thread, p4
submit doesn't care about whether keywords are expanded or not anyway.
Cheers.
--
Jing Xue
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-09-16 13:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-09-15 6:26 [PATCH] Optional shrinking of RCS keywords in git-p4 dhruva
2008-09-15 6:35 ` David Brown
2008-09-15 7:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-09-15 11:02 ` Tor Arvid Lund
2008-09-15 19:22 ` Daniel Barkalow
2008-09-16 4:12 ` David Brown
2008-09-16 12:58 ` Jing Xue [this message]
2008-09-16 17:12 ` Daniel Barkalow
2008-09-16 17:32 ` Daniel Barkalow
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-09-19 2:56 dhruva
2008-09-16 13:33 dhruva
2008-09-16 4:53 dhruva
2008-09-16 17:26 ` Daniel Barkalow
2008-09-16 2:51 dhruva
2008-09-15 11:46 dhruva
2008-09-15 15:27 ` Tor Arvid Lund
2008-09-15 7:21 dhruva
2008-09-15 6:31 dhruva
2008-09-15 5:58 Dhruva Krishnamurthy
2008-09-15 6:09 ` David Brown
2008-09-15 6:17 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080916125856.GB3069@jabba.hq.digizenstudio.com \
--to=jingxue@digizenstudio.com \
--cc=barkalow@iabervon.org \
--cc=dhruva@ymail.com \
--cc=git@davidb.org \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=simon@lst.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).