Admiral
Admiral
465 views

Share vs "reverse" share on promote with "rollback to historical revision" difference type

Jump to solution

 I asked a question about this difference type before, but something struck me just now.

We've established that if I try to promote a non-tip revision because the task associated at the tip is not ready to me promoted, the only way I will get my version to the parent is to reverse share it up, which will create a new revision at the tip  as it branches to a rolled back revision in the target.

I just notice that "Share" is also an option, as well as "Reverse share"

I was always under the impression that "shares" were created on new source files that are rebased or replicated to the target.

In the case of a promote operation, I assumed the only way to create the new file in the parent was to "reverse share". Can you explain the meaning of "share" in a promote operation when compared to "reverse share".

Thanks

Tags (1)
0 Likes
1 Solution

Accepted Solutions
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert
>>the meaning of "share" in a promote operation when compared to "reverse share".
The Share operation will create a child share of the selected source share, even though this will result in the direction of the share tree failing to comply with the view hierarchy.
i.e. the parent share will be a child of the child share, while the parent view will be the parent of the child view.
While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this sharing model, it violates the direction of the share tree.
As a consequence, if the child view is subsequently deleted, the shares in the parent view will all be orphaned.

The Reverse Share, as its name implies, (internally) moves the child share up to the parent view, then shares it down to the child view, and finally swaps the id's in place. This ensures the sanctity of the share tree.

This is true of all promote's not just non-tip.

View solution in original post

0 Likes
2 Replies
Micro Focus Expert
Micro Focus Expert
>>the meaning of "share" in a promote operation when compared to "reverse share".
The Share operation will create a child share of the selected source share, even though this will result in the direction of the share tree failing to comply with the view hierarchy.
i.e. the parent share will be a child of the child share, while the parent view will be the parent of the child view.
While there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this sharing model, it violates the direction of the share tree.
As a consequence, if the child view is subsequently deleted, the shares in the parent view will all be orphaned.

The Reverse Share, as its name implies, (internally) moves the child share up to the parent view, then shares it down to the child view, and finally swaps the id's in place. This ensures the sanctity of the share tree.

This is true of all promote's not just non-tip.

View solution in original post

0 Likes
Admiral
Admiral
Fantastic answer. Thanks.
0 Likes
The opinions expressed above are the personal opinions of the authors, not of Micro Focus. By using this site, you accept the Terms of Use and Rules of Participation. Certain versions of content ("Material") accessible here may contain branding from Hewlett-Packard Company (now HP Inc.) and Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company. As of September 1, 2017, the Material is now offered by Micro Focus, a separately owned and operated company. Any reference to the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks is historical in nature, and the HP and Hewlett Packard Enterprise/HPE marks are the property of their respective owners.