git-p4 cloned repo contains mixed filename case -- how to fix?

I imported a large repo using git-p4, and discovered that I have some strangely mixed-case filenames, e.g.:

dirA/DIRb/file1.txt

and then other files like so:

DIRa/dirB/FILE2.txt

and so on. These get entered into the repo this way because git-p4 uses fast-import. This causes Git to mysteriously claim that there are untracked directories, which are definitely not untracked, and have no new files in them. I discovered from reading this question:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3446929/git-still-untracked-after-add

and specifically slayerIQ's answer, that this can be fixed by renaming the dirs in question to have the matching case. And indeed, in a few cases where files had only a single case format, this fixed it. But for the mixed up ones like I mentioned above, it does nothing. This sort of listing confirms my suspicions regarding the case:

git ls-tree --name-only -r branch

I've considered using history rewriting to try to fix it, but that seems awfully heavyweight and I'm a bit hesitant to go there unless I have to (the tree is ~25K files). On the other hand, I do "git status" on a clean tree and get a list of about 35 "untracked" paths. So it's sort of untenable.

I'm able to do a git-p4 clone from scratch if I need to, but I suspect the mixed case paths are coming from Perforce itself. SmartGit doesn't have this problem with the tree, and copying the exact tree to a new repo works fine (since it's added correctly).

Any ideas on how to proceed?

Thanks :)

View the original article here

How do I see if a branch contains a bug fix in Perforce?

Perforce tracks where revisions of a file have been integrated, but it doesn't automatically propagate check-in comments with your bug-tracking metadata.

Given a changelist on a particular branch, you can tell whether Perforce thinks the changelist has been integrated by asking Perforce to integrate the changelist. (I'm using "branch" in the more traditional source-control sense, to mean a particular branch of the source code tree, rather than in the specific Perforce sense to mean the path of integration between these two source code trees.) Let's say you've been working in //source/project/trunk/... and you have a changelist @1234 that you'd like to check whether it's been integrated into your release branch //source/project/rel/.... Create a client that maps //source/project/rel/... and execute:

$ p4 integrate -n //source/project/trunk/...@1234,1234 //source/project/rel/...

If Perforce tells you "All revision(s) already integrated.", changelist @1234 has been integrated, and that bugfix ought to be available on the release branch. If Perforce lists files that have changed, those files have not been integrated. (It's also possible for some files in a changelist to be integrated and not others, which may make for some interesting problems.)

This doesn't scale especially well -- you need to check each bugfix on each branch you care about, though it does lend itself to automation.

You can use the "unsupported" Perforce command interchanges to get a quick idea of what changelists have not been integrated from one branch into another. (In Perforce parlance, "unsupported" means something like "might not work the same in the next revision, but we think it could be useful so we'll release it anyway".) To see what changelists haven't been integrated from our example trunk to release branches, execute:

$ p4 interchanges //source/project/trunk/... //source/project/rel/...Change 1236 on 2010/10/10 by user@client 'Fixed some bug you don't care about'Change 1235 on 2010/10/09 by user@other_client 'Fixed some other random bug'

In this example, I haven't listed changelist @1234 because it's already been integrated into the release branch. One problem I've experienced using interchanges is it'll list every newer revision after an unintegrated change, even if the newer revisions themselves have been integrated, so if you're cherry-picking revisions for a release branch you may see changelists listed again. I use interchanges as a first pass to get a rough idea of what I need to integrate, then look at integrate to get a better idea of what's really missing.

(Perforce also supports a similar concept of "jobs", that let one attach particular fixes to particular changelists, but my organization doesn't use them so I don't know how well they work or whether they are propagated automatically on integration.)

View the original article here