Share/Pin/Branch of a label defined at a root folder

Dave Schulte · Post by **Dave Schulte** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 1:53 pm

When sharing from a label applied at a root folder to a new folder, the result is that the target folder image is pinned, as expected. However, unlike VSS, where all files within the folder are pinned as well and one can branch such a file causing its association with the original image to be broken and a new image created within the shared-to location, Vault 2.06 forces a "Copy Branch" instead of a "Share Branch". I can only do a "Share Branch" at the root folder level, which ends up forcing a branch of every single file in the folder. This is not the behavior I desire. I would like to see the behavior exhibitted by VSS, where I can pick a single file within the folder and branch it, while all of the other files remain pinned.

Am I doing something wrong? Is this supported differently in Vault 3.x?

Thank you in advance.

dan · Post by **dan** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:09 pm

The difference between Vault and VSS in this instance is that Vault supports folder share, and uses it when sharing from a historical version. VSS uses a recursive file share, so each share can be (or must be) broken individually.

So, no you are not doing anything wrong - this is artifact of Vault's support for folder share.

Dave Schulte · Post by **Dave Schulte** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:18 pm

Thanks dan. I also read up on a prev. discussion from back in september that seems to suggest that we use branching from the label defined at a folder level instead of, sharing from this same label. The result seems to be the same (i.e., with share/pin we end up pinning the folder, only having to branch from the folder anyway which produces the same result as having branched from the label applied to the root foler in the first place). My main concern was with disk space, given that I saw the revision numbers increase for all of the files and subfolders. I just wanted to be sure that the increase in revision numbers did not result in new file images being saved for the branched copies (i.e., no new tblfileinfo rows, which seems to be true - no new tblfileinfo rows appear to be created as a result of such a branch).

dan · Post by **dan** » Thu Dec 02, 2004 3:21 pm

Yes, that's true - branches don't copy the contents of the files in the SQL, so they are lightweight, in that sense.