Perforce Shakespeare Definition

[Danielyan Garay]

Iam new to perforce streams. I have gone though some docs over net and not clearly understood what is the main use of perforce streams.Can any one please help me giving brief intro on perforce streams. what is the main purpose ? when it is useful ?

It would be easier to answer this question if you gave some hint of your context -- do you already understand the general concepts of branching and merging as they're used in other tools, or better yet, are you already familiar with how branching works in Perforce without streams? If so I could give you some specifics on what the benefits of streams are relative to manually managing branch and client views.

For this answer though I'm going to assume you're new to branching in general and will simply direct you to the 2006 Google Tech Talk "The Flow of Change", which was given by Laura Wingerd, one of the chief architects of Perforce streams. This is from about 5 years before streams were actually implemented in Perforce (the 2011.1 release), but the core ideas around what it means to manage the flow of change between variants of software are all there. Hopefully with the additional context of the stream docs you've already read it'll be more clear why this is useful in the real world.

The main purpose of streams from a technical standpoint is to eliminate the work of maintaining these views. With "classic" Perforce branching, you might declare the file path //depot/main/... is your mainline and //depot/rel1/... is your rel1 release branch, and then define views like this:

This is a very simple example of course -- if you decide you want to unmap some files from the branch, then you have to make that change in both client specs and possibly the branch view, if you create more branches that's more client specs and more branch specs, etc.

All tasks around managing branch and client views are handled automatically -- the switch command generates a client view appropriate to the named stream and syncs it (it also shelves your work in progress, or optionally relocates it to the new stream similar to a git checkout command), and the merge command generates a branch view that maps between the current stream and the named source stream.

This is automatically inherited by all child streams and is reflected in all automatically generated client and branch views (it's like adding a -//depot/branch/....o //client/... line to all your client views at once).

There's a lot more that you can do with stream definitions but hopefully that gives you the general idea -- the point is to take all the work that people do to manage views associated with codelines and centralize/automate it for ease of use, as well as provide nice syntactic sugar like p4 switch and p4 merge --from.

What be his gifts? How doth he pay?

When is he seen? Or how conceived?

Sweet dreams in sleep, new thoughts in day,

Beholding eyes, in mind received;

A god that rules and yet obeys.

This is not just in the general style of Shakespeare, but has the mastery of rhythmic variation that we see only in Shakespeare. Look at the way he plays with the caesura. In the shower, try singing these stanzas to yourself in the style of the Beastie Boys. You can do this with a lot of Shakespeare. With almost anyone else from the period it would be either prosy or sing-songy. But Shakespeare often just rocks.

Now: it is a documented historical fact that the author of these lines lived for at least 28 years after writing them. What did he write in the next three decades? A mystery. As the Britannica, not an Oxfordian source, puts it:

This is like hearing a bark and assuming that it was produced by a dog. Also, there is a dog around the corner, which is known to bark. I also do a pretty good bark. Maybe I snuck up next to the dog, and barked. Or maybe the dog barked.

More complicated is the negative case for William Shaksper of Stratford (who used many different spellings, but this is a standard disambiguation) as not Shakespeare. (Two excellent works from this perspective are Mark Twain and George Greenwood). Once you are looking for someone else, it is easy to find Oxford. But why look?

In this case, it would take an enormous mental density not to suspect a literary hoax. Without any other evidence, a hoax is more probable than the official story, because the official story is so improbable. The best way to construct a plausible story is to find the simplest, most banal reality that could underlie the documentary facts.

For example, we might hazard a guess that the real author of the academic novels is an English professor, and the miraculous Ghanaian (who really exists) is his lover. Perhaps there is some practical reason to publish under this false name. The professor does not want to be outed as lampooning his colleague; the Ghanaian is eligible for affirmative action; etc.

From direct documentary evidence, we have a clear and simple narrative of William Shaksper of Stratford. His signatures are those of a semi-literate man from the lower middle class, to which he belonged. (His daughter Judith signed her name with a mark.) Fleeing a bad marriage, he ran away to London, where his rustic dialect was barely comprehensible, he got into the theater business. He found work as a stagehand, then became an actor, then ended up as what we would now call a producer. Liking money, he branched out in his business career and became a dealer in malt and wool.

What is the documentary evidence for the identification of Shakespeare as Shaksper? We find exactly one unambiguous source: the preface to the First Folio, printed under the names of two other actors. London at the turn of the 17th century was not full of barista actors writing screenplays in the attic. Acting was a menial trade. Writing was an aristocratic hobby. Maybe your Mexican landscaper plays polo. What are the odds? Horses, zebras. Maybe Ben Jonson, who wrote the inscription, also wrote the preface. It kind of sounds like him. Suppose this one document is a hoax? This is all we need.

Reactionary enlightenment in one field should cast Bayesian doubt on other fields. Instead, local enlightenment reinforces global ignorance. Logically, the specialist should reason that if his own field, which he knows closely, is corrupt, other fields which he cannot examine in detail may be corrupt as well.

But emotionally, the cost of a general dissidence far exceeds the value of extending the inference. The sweet spot is general compliance, local dissidence. So Oxfordians are at great pains to deny any hint of reactionary sympathies. Instead of the Oxford theory being the keystone to the story of the last half-millennium, it is a literary curiosity.

In the literary Piltdown that is Shaksper of Stratford, every clue in the corny rustic romance of the country genius is a false lead pointing in the democratic direction. Once we cleanse our brains of this cheese, we notice that democratic themes are virtually absent in Shakespeare.

Shakespeare is indeed full of explicitly anti-democratic rhetoric. Coriolanus is an anti-democratic play. In Henry VI there is zero sympathy for the peasant rebel, Jack Cade. In The Tempest, Shakespeare basically invents racism. Etc.

The Brownists were a group of English Dissenters or early Separatists from the Church of England. They were named after Robert Browne, who was born at Tolethorpe Hall in Rutland, England, in the 1550s. A majority of the Separatists aboard the Mayflower in 1620 were Brownists, and indeed the Pilgrims were known into the 20th century as the Brownist Emigration.

Many people feel that if they write enough books and essays, if they make enough videos and podcasts, they can carry the day for the lost king of the English language, and restore the Earl to the place of Master Apis Lapis that he deserves forever.

The market for ideas is what machine-learning nerds call an optimization landscape. Imagine you are in a landscape of rolling hills. Your goal is to find the highest point in the landscape. Solution: wherever you are, walk uphill. At the top of the hill, stop.

We live in an oligarchy of prestigious institutions that is full of super-smart people. But these institutions cannot change their minds. They cannot leap this far. They operate by process, and there is no process for any such leap.

If all four problems have the same solution, they are the same problem. All the energy being used to solve the individual problems, which are not actually the real problem but just symptoms of it, can be focused on the actual problem upstream.

This whole blog seems to have become a big troll meant to piss me off. Not only do you hate the US Constitution (the point on which I used to agree to some extent but now vehemently disagree though some changes could be useful), but then you come out and support Putin. Then, to top it all off, you engage in the most refuted slander of all time and support Oxfordianism.

Only an idiot would let someone else take credit for those masterworks. And, indeed, we see Shakespeare doing things like pandering to Elizabeth's ancestors and excoriating the Yorkists and heaping lavish praise on the Lancastrians, avoiding the obvious and highly dramatic plot points in his Henry the Eighth (such as Henry's many marriages and executions) and adding fulsome praise of Elizabeth to the same, that would make no damn sense if he was a fall boy: Why have a fall boy if you aren't willing to risk a fall? Why not take the credit for your compliments to the queen? Shakespeare, despite his genius, is one of the biggest ass-kissers in all of history; you don't kiss ass with a pseudonym.

We see Shakespeare's development as a poet---and Oxford never even came close to him. Any verse in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus, far and away his worst play and an early work, beats to living hell anything produced by Oxford. Or take Two Gentlemen of Verona, the other candidate for worst play and probably Shakespeare's very first, it too beats out Oxford's known production.

3a8082e126