Light weight replication

[Soho]

We have a projects with a lot of xlinks and a long history of changesets totalling many GB.

Is it possible to make a light weight replication to, say a laptop, of a specific branch, such that the replication will only contain the content and history of that branch?

In other words, is it possible to replicate a subset of the branch tree? As I remember it, that was indeed very possible with Plastic 3, but I am in doubt that the Plastic 4 model will allow replicating a branch without also replicating the whole branch tree.

For example, if our repo looks something like this:

/Project_Source

writable relative xlink -> /Old_Huge_Library_With_Long_History

writable relative xlink -> /Gigabytes_of_test_data

I would like to have a local repo replication of /Old_Huge_Library_With_Long_History and /Gigabytes_of_test_data containing only the changesets in some selected "lean" branch and not the whole history.

I realize that I could probably cheat and make local lean copies of the xlinked repros, but could I replicate only some specific branch (or changeset) of the xlinked repos and still keep them writable and synchronizable?

[psantosl]

You have a possibility here:

• Suppose you want to replicate cset 1400 only (your latest baseline)
  
• Create an empty branch from it on your source repo
  
• Replicate only the empty branch
  
• You'll get what you need on the replicated repo. Just one cset
  

Things change a little bit if you're using xlinks because you'll need to get the points linking to it.

My preference here would be (not clean, but doable)

• Create empty branches too on the xlinked repos (from the right point)
  
• Replicate them
  

And you'll have it.

[Soho]

Ok, this was actually also my first plan. I will try it out.

Can I configure replication to only sync a specific branch? AS I recall it I have to right click a branch and choose sync. There is no way to "lock" my sync view to a specific branch (+ sub branches) right?

[psantosl]

Not now. It is a good suggestion. We've it in mind, but check whether it is on uservoice