Determine what has changed using full content comparison
- slow (especially transferring whole content across net)
- completely accurate
Determine what has probably changed using content checksums
- transfer only checksums across net => fast if no change
- may be inaccurate if checksums collide (yeah, I am paranoid)
- computation (of checksum) on both sides
- or, a VC tool may cache checksums of original checkout => local change
- false negatives - no change detected - if checksums collide - but ubnlikely
- no false positives
Determine what may have changed using heuristics and metadata
- e.g. file modification dates
- e.g. whether user has checked a file out for editing or not
- false positives and false negatives
- false negatives - undetected changes - may be common, e.g. if not using modification dates or if M times can be changed
p4v "get latest" seems to use the third approach, heuristics and metadata. I got bitten by false negatives - true changes not reported - almost immediately.
p4v "get revision / latest / force" uses the full content transfer.
I realized that I was implicitly assuming the second approach, content checksums. Fast, very l;ow chance of false negatives (checksum collision). I.e. I have grown used to rsync and its descendants. It does not appear that p4/p4v have this ability.
It is not clear where "p4v reconcile" falls. It is possible that p4v reconcile uses local metadata heuristics, and that p4v reconcile in combination with p4v get latest is high confidence. But having been burned once, I am using p4v-get-revision/latest/force far too often. And it is very slow.
Perhaps what I need to do is keep a clean workspace, use p4v get latest on that, and then diff using local tools. Avoids the slow net transfers of p4v-get-revision/latest/force.
Disclaimer
The content of this blog is my personal opinion only. Although I am an employee - currently of Nvidia, in the past of other companies such as Iagination Technologies, MIPS, Intellectual Ventures, Intel, AMD, Motorola, and Gould - I reveal this only so that the reader may account for any possible bias I may have towards my employer's products. The statements I make here in no way represent my employer's position, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of my employer. In fact, this posting may not even represent my personal opinion, since occasionally I play devil's advocate.
See http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcxddbtr_23cg5thdfj for photo credits.
See http://docs.google.com/View?id=dcxddbtr_23cg5thdfj for photo credits.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment