At 08:59 AM 11/2/2001 +0000, Greg Whitfield wrote:

Actually, support for integration between files other than just on child-parent branches would be sufficient. Adding a new map to your branch spec would then preserve the one-to-one mapping for reverse integration purposes. I understand that this carries a maintenance burden that is lightweight, but less than desirable.

On the rename issue, there are things you can do with Inter-File Branching that you couldn't do with a "true rename." I quote the latter because it is not clear what that actually means. You certainly don't want to change the historical name. It could be reasonable for it to mean a separation of name from content. It would be nice if it could track rename integrations between branches, but that would also impose a "standard usage" for IFB that would get in the way in some very reasonable situations, such as refactoring of Java, C++ or HTML.

Perforce does "support" it, although admittedly awkwardly at times. What elements of "support" are most important to you? That may prove a more productive statement.

I can't answer why they haven't done anything about it. There wasn't any mention at the conference that I heard, although I missed a couple sessions. There was mention of the work in progress to address the parent-child branching issue. Some of the foundational changes for it are already in place.