12 messages in com.perforce.perforce-user[p4] depot structure question| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Lewit, Mike | 23 Feb 2005 09:58 | |
| Helck, Christopher | 23 Feb 2005 10:36 | |
| Stephen Vance | 23 Feb 2005 11:43 | |
| Lewit, Mike | 23 Feb 2005 12:11 | |
| Dave Lewis | 23 Feb 2005 12:11 | |
| Stephen Vance | 23 Feb 2005 13:17 | |
| Robert Cowham | 23 Feb 2005 14:36 | |
| Paul Goffin | 24 Feb 2005 01:42 | |
| Johan Nilsson | 24 Feb 2005 01:47 | |
| Lewit, Mike | 24 Feb 2005 09:11 | |
| jab | 24 Feb 2005 12:56 | |
| Lewit, Mike | 24 Feb 2005 13:57 |
| Subject: | [p4] depot structure question |
|---|---|
| From: | Lewit, Mike (Mike...@dgs.oceusa.com) |
| Date: | 02/24/2005 01:57:12 PM |
| List: | com.perforce.perforce-user |
Most of the components are tested on their own and then released for integration into the system.
-----Original Message----- From: jab [mailto:jab at pobox.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 12:57 PM To: Lewit, Mike Cc: 'Paul Goffin'; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: Re: [p4] depot structure question
Truth be told, the real question is an engineering one:
are the individual components tested individually or only when linked into the larger applications?
Most component-ware strategies have pretty spotty unit testing, and that's the time that you want really strong unit-level testing. (Cuz if a component's changed APIs or behavior, it's better to know before trying an application with that component, not afterwards.)
-Jeff Bowles
On Feb 24, 2005, at 9:12 AM, Lewit, Mike wrote:
Our?entire group is working on one project with people?assigned?to components so I need to track it at that level. Also we are an OEM and we must exactly what s/w configuration?went out the door I like the idea of a build marker in the binary.
-----Original Message----- From: Paul Goffin [mailto:Paul.Goffin at aepsystems.com] Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2005 1:43 AM To: Lewit, Mike; perforce-user at perforce.com Subject: RE: [p4] depot structure question
We used to do something like this - it was my best guess of how to do this at the time. ? I wouldn't do it again. ? Our problem was that the components never had real people take responsibility for them, people took responsibility for products, but never components. ? So the overhead of managing the branching of the various "releases" of components ended up being unnecessary effort. ? The system I'd now favour is to minimise branching and to instead embed a "build marker" into every built binary - the build marker being the "change number you have to sync to in order to get the sources that went into this build". ? Paul. ? ?
-----Original Message----- From: Lewit, Mike [mailto:Mike.Lewit at dgs.oceusa.com] Sent: 23 February 2005 17:59 To: 'perforce-user at perforce.com' Subject: [p4] depot structure question
I have a project with 3 components: CORE, JA & JB.?I want to release each individually and release the entire system under one version#.?? I came up with the following structure for?the project: ? ?//products/proj/CORE/main ?????????????????? .../CORE/rel ???????????????????????????? .../rel/1.0 ?????????????????? .../JA/main ?????????????????? .../JA/rel ??????????????????????? .../rel/1.0
????????????????? .../JB/main ? ??????????????? .../JB/rel ?? ??????????????????? .../rel/1.0 ?????????????????????? .../rel/1.1 ? ??????? ?? .../proj/rel ??????????????????? .../rel/1.0
??????????????????????? .../1.0/CORE/1.0 ? ????????????????????? .../1.0/JA/1.0 ??????????????????????? .../1.0/JB/1.0
?????????????????? .../rel/1.1 ?? ???????????????????? .../1.1/CORE/1.0 ??????????????????????? .../1.1/JA/1.0 ??????????????????????? .../1.1/JB/1.1 ? Project rel 1.0 is made up of core 1.0, JA 1.0 and JB 1.0.?? I rev'd JB to 1.1 and now released proj rel 1.1.? Does this make sense? What would be the best way to?create?the ../project/rel tree??? Do I manually branch each components rel tree into the .../proj/rel tree or do I sync everything to my build drive and then do a "Add to source control" to the .../project/rel?tree? ? Thanks, Mike
********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the postmaster at the address below. ITS-Support at aepsystems.com
Unless the contrary is specifically indicated above nothing in this message is intended to constitute an electronic signature within the meaning of the Electronic Commerce Act 2000 or similar legislation enacted elsewhere in the world.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. *********************************************************************** ******
_______________________________________________ Come to the 2005 Perforce User Conference, April 14 & 15 in Las Vegas. Learn more: http://www.perforce.com/conf
perforce-user mailing list - perforce-user at perforce.com http://maillist.perforce.com/mailman/listinfo/perforce-user