vitor.hda@xxxxxxxxx wrote on Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:33 +0000: > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 10:58 PM, Pete Wyckoff <pw@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is another fundamental disconnect between p4 and git. > > Reading > > > > http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4guide/07_labels.html > > > > it is clear that labels are supposed to be used exactly where > > tags cannot: to specify a collection of files as they existed > > at _different_ points in the commit history. > > Check the "Use Tag Fixup Branches" section in fast-import manual, it > might help on this. The basic concept is to create a special branch > that puts all files in the same state the P4 label would put them and > then tag it in git. > > Tried to use this for my branch stuff, but with no success. Interesting, thanks. One could certainly construct any arbitrary tree to represent the tag. But it would be a truly evil merge of possibly many commits. > > Thus I think supporting labels is kind of pointless. But in the > > restricted use case that perforce docs tell us not to do, namely > > using labels to identify change numbers, git can reflect that > > with tags. > > I still use labels as simple tags. Telling that we should use > changelists instead of labels is the same as saying that we should use > IP addresses instead of host names. It works, but I doubt you will > ever remember it unless you write it down somewhere. I see your point. P4 labels are the only way that they support tagging, apparently. I'm okay with leaving label support in git-p4. And it will be nice if Luke makes it behave a bit better. But doing heroics to emulate cross-commit tags feels like a lot of work, and the wrong direction. -- Pete -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html