Clearcase UCM-交叉交付与向上交付? [英] Clearcase UCM - Cross delivering vs. delivering upwards?

问题描述

我们在同一级别的层次结构中有两个Clearcase UCM流(即，相同的父流).如果两个子流都重新基于相同的父基线，那是否意味着

We have two Clearcase UCM streams in a hierarchy at the same level (i.e. same parent stream). If the two child streams are both rebased to the same parent baseline, does that mean that

• 将两个流的活动传递到父级(一个，然后另一个)

相当于:

• 将一个子流的活动传递给另一子流，然后简单地将一个子流的活动传递给父流

这是真的吗?似乎应该如此，假设所有交付的任何手动/用户选择的合并都是以相同的方式进行的.

Is this in fact true? It seems it should be, assuming any manual/user selected merges for all deliveries are made in the same way.

推荐答案

这是正确的，但首先提醒一下:

This is correct, but first a few reminders:

• 拥有子流并不意味着必须从该子流向其父对象进行交付.可以从流向任何其他流进行传递.
• 横向合并 可能会很危险流不是基于相同的基础基准(如最终合并到父级，冲突仍将存在，如此

• having a sub-stream does not mean a deliver have to be done from that sub-stream to its parent. A deliver can be done from a stream to any other one.
• sideway merges can be dangerous if the two streams are not based upon the same foundation baseline (conflicts will still be there when making the final merge to the parent, as seen in this illustrated answer).
• a deliver creates a timeline linking all present activities together. That means if you only deliver a1, a2 and a3 to B, then decide to deliver a4 only (and not a5) to any other streams (other than B), ClearCase will force you to deliver all activities (a1 to a5), even though they very well be completely un-related in term of files.
  That does not happens if you:
  • only deliver to the parent
  • always deliver all the current activities anyway!

  在您的情况下，由于两个流都具有相同的起点，因此首先将A传递到B，然后再将B传递给父级，是解决B中任何合并冲突(不会影响父级的过早)的一种方法进行最终合并.

  In your case, since both streams have the same starting points, making first a deliver from A to B, before delivering B to parent, is a way to solving any merge conflicts in B (without impacting too soon the parent) before making the final merge.

  这篇关于Clearcase UCM-交叉交付与向上交付?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！