12 messages in com.perforce.perforce-userPromotion/SCM models| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jeff...@uplanet.com | 10 Jun 1997 14:24 | |
| Clay...@stac.com | 11 Jun 1997 10:41 | |
| Jeff...@uplanet.com | 11 Jun 1997 11:28 | |
| Paul...@radstone.co.uk | 12 Jun 1997 00:52 | |
| Gerd...@BITart.com | 12 Jun 1997 01:00 | |
| Paul...@radstone.co.uk | 12 Jun 1997 03:34 | |
| Wayn...@ichips.intel.com | 12 Jun 1997 08:13 | |
| Jeff...@uplanet.com | 12 Jun 1997 08:20 | |
| Nick...@navio.com | 12 Jun 1997 09:40 | |
| Clay...@stac.com | 12 Jun 1997 10:06 | |
| Clay...@stac.com | 12 Jun 1997 10:28 | |
| Jeff...@uplanet.com | 12 Jun 1997 10:30 |
| Subject: | Promotion/SCM models![]() |
|---|---|
| From: | Jeff...@uplanet.com (Jeff...@uplanet.com) |
| Date: | 06/11/1997 11:28:20 AM |
| List: | com.perforce.perforce-user |
At 10:41 AM 6/11/97 -0700, you wrote:
Thanks for the reply. I'm implementing nearly the exact structure proposed on the Web site.
Our developers are not used to using branching, so we're going to start
slow too. My hope is we won't have to stop development just prior to release any longer.
My approach was "get everyone into the 'mainline' and have all work default into there unless there's a reason for it to go elsewhere. The best 'reason' is when the work is intended for a bug fix for a specific release, in which case you put it into the release line and integrate it back into the mainline."
People aren't quite used to the branch model yet, here, and I figure it'll be another 2-3 weeks before they get it down. From there it should be a piece of cake.
-Jeff Bowles
ps. If you're interested in the "beginning Perforce talk" I gave to the people here, let me know. It's at ... let's see ... http://www.slip.net/~jbowles/p4presentation/index.htm Note that the suffix has three characters, not four.




