[p4] Low-importance question about View: syntax - Stephen Vance - com.perforce.perforce-user

3 messages in com.perforce.perforce-user[p4] Low-importance question about Vi...

From	Sent On	Attachments
Paul Cody Johnston	09 Nov 2001 16:14
Stephen Vance	09 Nov 2001 17:49
Chuck Karish	10 Nov 2001 07:22

Subject:	[p4] Low-importance question about View: syntax
From:	Stephen Vance (ste...@vance.com)
Date:	11/09/2001 05:49:11 PM
List:	com.perforce.perforce-user

I don't believe anything else is acceptable, except clientspec-identifier. However, the right hand side is a complete path spec, which probably makes the spec parser easier to write in a generic fashion.

You couldn't really do depot-to-depot mappings because they would not tell what part of the depot path should map to the client. For example, it common types of maps are

//depot/dev/mybranch/... //myclient/...

//depotA/... //myclient/A/... //depotB/... //myclient/B/...

At 04:14 PM 11/9/2001 -0800, Paul Cody Johnston wrote:

Each line under the View: section of a client specification defines a mapping between the server depot and the client workspace. For example:

# SERVER # CLIENT //mydepot/... //clientspec-identifier/mydepot/...

What is the seemingly redundant purpose of explicitly naming the clientspec-identifier in the second column? Isn't this already known since we are already in the context of the 'clientspec-identifier' record? For example, why not:

//mydepot/... //mydepot/...

Said another way: Is one allowed to substitute another identifier in place of the clientspec-identifier? If so, what are the effects?