Re: State of Perforce importing.

From: Reece Dunn <msclrhd@googlemail.com>
Date: Sep 19, 2007, 21:20 UTC
Message-ID: <3f4fd2640709191420w1245449cwb9646b6c6e0e1c82@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <46F06C0F.3040609@vilain.net>

On 19/09/2007, Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net> wrote:

Show 13 quoted lines

> Reece Dunn wrote:
> > There is no need to create yet another Perforce importing tool, git-p4
> > works well in most cases. If we focus on improving git-p4, extending
> > it to support the functionality mentioned here, fix the issues that
> > there are with it, then that will be more beneficial to the community
> > as they will not have to learn another tool with a different set of
> > bugs and issues.
>
> I like my approach; it's clean and I think shows a tasteful level of
> distrust towards the sanity and integrity of the data held by Perforce.
>  Actually it really helped me understand what was really going on;
> because the information as displayed by for instance "p4 integrate" is
> a lot more confusing than the underlying tables (IMHO).

I agree. What I wasn't clear about in that paragraph, but had eluded to in other comments in that email, is that having both git-p4 and git-p4raw is a good thing as they operate on two differing use cases. What I was referring to there is to have another equivalent of git-p4 that interfaced using the p4 client.

- Reece