Search Results

Search found 783 results on 32 pages for 'branches'.

Page 10/32 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

• folder structure in a mercurial repo?

  - by ajsie

  I have just switched from svn to mercurial and have read some tutorials about it. I've still got some confusions that i hope you could help me to sort out. I wonder if I have understood the folder structure in a mercurial repo right. In a svn repo I usually have these folders: svn: branches (branches/chat, branches/new_login etc) tags (version1.0, version2.0 etc) sandbox trunk Should a branch actually be another clone of the original/central repo in mercurial? it seemed like that when I read the manual. And a tag is just a named identifier, but you should clone the original/central repo whenever you want to create a tag? How about the sandbox? should that be another clone too? So basically you just have in a repo all the folders/files that you would have in the trunk folder? mercurial: central repo: projects folders/files (not in any parentfolder) tag repo: cloned from central repo at a given moment for release (version1.0, version2.0 etc) branch repo: cloned from central repo for adding features (chat, new_login etc) sandbox repo: experimental repo (could be pushed to central repo, or just deleted) is this correct?

  Read the article

• Tree-like queues

  - by Rehno Lindeque

  I'm implementing a interpreter-like project for which I need a strange little scheduling queue. Since I'd like to try and avoid wheel-reinvention I was hoping someone could give me references to a similar structure or existing work. I know I can simply instantiate multiple queues as I go along, I'm just looking for some perspective by other people who might have better ideas than me ;) I envision that it might work something like this: The structure is a tree with a single root. You get a kind of "insert_iterator" to the root and then push elements onto it (e.g. a and b in the example below). However, at any point you can also split the iterator into multiple iterators, effectively creating branches. The branches cannot merge into a single queue again, but you can start popping elements from the front of the queue (again, using a kind of "visitor_iterator") until empty branches can be discarded (at your discretion). x -> y -> z a -> b -> { g -> h -> i -> j } f -> b Any ideas? Seems like a relatively simple structure to implement myself using a pool of circular buffers but I'm following the "think first, code later" strategy :) Thanks

  Read the article

• How to get a checkout-able revision info from subversion?

  - by zhongshu

  I want to check a svn url and to get the latest revision, then checkout it, I don't want to use HEAD because I will compare the latest revision to others. so I use "svn info" to get the "Last Changed Rev" for the url like this: D:\Project>svn info svn://.../branches/.../path Path: ... URL: svn://.../branches/.../path Repository Root: svn://yt-file-srv/ Repository UUID: 9ed5ffd7-7585-a14e-96b2-4aab7121bb21 Revision: 2400 Node Kind: directory Last Changed Author: xxx Last Changed Rev: 2396 Last Changed Date: 2010-03-12 09:31:52 +0800 but, I found the 2396 revision is not checkout-able, because this path is in a branch copied from trunk, and the 2396 is the revision modified in the trunk. so when I use svn checkout -r 2396, I will get a workcopy for the path in the trunk, then I can not do checkin for the branch. D:\Project>svn checkout svn://.../branches/.../path -r 2396 workcopy ..... ..... D:\Project>svn info workcopy Path: workcopy URL: svn://.../trunk/.../path Repository Root: svn://yt-file-srv/ Repository UUID: 9ed5ffd7-7585-a14e-96b2-4aab7121bb21 Revision: 2396 Node Kind: directory Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: xxx Last Changed Rev: 2396 Last Changed Date: 2010-03-12 09:31:52 +0800 So, my question is how to get a checkout-able revision for the branch path, for this example, I want to get 2397 (because 2397 is the revision which copy occur). And I know "svn log" can get the info, but "svn log" output maybe very long and parse it will be difficult than "svn info". I just want know which revision is the latest checkout-able revision for the path.

  Read the article

• How to get the earliest checkout-able revision info from subversion?

  - by zhongshu

  I want to check a svn url and to get the earliest revision, then checkout it, I don't want to use HEAD because I will compare the earliest revision to others. so I use "svn info" to get the "Last Changed Rev" for the url like this: D:\Project>svn info svn://.../branches/.../path Path: ... URL: svn://.../branches/.../path Repository Root: svn://yt-file-srv/ Repository UUID: 9ed5ffd7-7585-a14e-96b2-4aab7121bb21 Revision: 2400 Node Kind: directory Last Changed Author: xxx Last Changed Rev: 2396 Last Changed Date: 2010-03-12 09:31:52 +0800 but, I found the 2396 revision is not checkout-able, because this path is in a branch copied from trunk, and the 2396 is the revision modified in the trunk. so when I use svn checkout -r 2396, I will get a working copy for the path in the trunk, then I can not do checkin for the branch. D:\Project>svn checkout svn://.../branches/.../path -r 2396 workcopy ..... ..... D:\Project>svn info workcopy Path: workcopy URL: svn://.../trunk/.../path Repository Root: svn://yt-file-srv/ Repository UUID: 9ed5ffd7-7585-a14e-96b2-4aab7121bb21 Revision: 2396 Node Kind: directory Schedule: normal Last Changed Author: xxx Last Changed Rev: 2396 Last Changed Date: 2010-03-12 09:31:52 +0800 So, my question is how to get a checkout-able revision for the branch path, for this example, I want to get 2397 (because 2397 is the revision which copy occur). And I know "svn log" can get the info, but "svn log" output maybe very long and parse it will be difficult than "svn info". I just want know which revision is the earliest checkout-able revision for the path.

  Read the article

• Microsoft Visual Studio Team Explorer 2010 codename “Eaglestone”

  - by HosamKamel

  Microsoft has released the beta release of Microsoft Visual Studio Team Explorer 2010 codename “Eaglestone”, the Eclipse plugin and cross-platform command line assets that were acquired from Teamprise back in November. You can download the bits here, and participate in the associated Microsoft Connect community here. Changes done in this release : All of the architectural changes in TFS 2010 has been reacted, which primarily shows up in our support for Team Project Collections but it also means that the Eclipse plug-in supports all the configurations for project portal and reporting services that are possible (including not having any configured at all) Added the enhanced work item linking and hierarchy capabilities.  You can now define typed links, query for work items based on links, and work with work item hierarchies. Added support for the new WF-based team build Have reacted to a lot of underlying changes in the source control version model with respect to how branching, merging, and renames happen. History now follows branches and merges. Branches are proper first class citizens in the source control explorer. You can check a detailed post written  by bharry here Microsoft Visual Studio Team Explorer 2010 codename “Eaglestone”

  Read the article

• asterisk/freeswitch in nat/no-nat setup

  - by pQd

  hi, my current setup - i use bunch of sip hard-phones around few offices. all devices have two sip accounts configured - one on internal sip proxy [for calls between the branches], another - at 3rd party voip providers [ since it's in different countries - those are different providers, but that's irrelevant ]. i was thinking about terminating sip calls on something like asterisk/freeswitch server and having all sip-devices log on just once to such server[s] - mostly to provide things like voicemail, groupcalls, redirections etc. it seems perfectly doable but there is one problem - i cannot find examples how to prepare for nat/no nat. for calls routed to from/to 3rd party voip operator - i'll need handling for nat/stun etc, but for handling of internal calls - i do not want any nat, all traffic should go via vpns to different branches. can you provide me some hints how to configure it? any tutorials? thanks!

  Read the article

• Render rivers in a grid.

  - by Gabriel A. Zorrilla

  I have created a random height map and now i want to create rivers. I've made an algorithm based on a* to make rivers flow from peaks to sea and now i'm in the quest of figuring out an elegant algorithm to render them. It's a 2D, square, mapgrid. The cells which the river pases has a simple integer value with this form :rivernumber && pointOrder. Ie: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16...1+N for the first river, 20,21,22,23...2+N for the second, etc. This is created in the map grid generation time and it's executed just once, when the world is generated. I wanted to treat each river as a vector, but there is a problem, if the same river has branches (because i put some noise to generate branches), i can not just connect the points in order. The second alternative is to generate a complex algorithm where analizes each point, checks if the next is not a branch, if so trigger another algorithm that take care of the branch then returns to the main river, etc. Very complex and inelegant. Perhaps there is a solution in the world generation algorithm or in the river rendering algorithm that is commonly used in these cases and i'm not aware of. Any tips? Thanks!!

  Read the article

• OpenVPN Cloud for Network monitoring

  - by mezgani

  I'm working on a supervision project based on OpenVPN, a good way to send some network traffic through a secure channel to office from there out to the Internet. On office i have an OpenVPN server installed and i need to monitor all branches servers that are behind firewalls. I know that the point to point solution is very easy so we may only install OpenVPN client on node that i need to monitor. In the fact, is there any other issue that could help to supervise all branches DMZ network, without installing the client on each machines.

  Read the article

• Merge only a one remote branch into a local branch with Mercurial

  - by Pepijn

  I wan to manage some profiles as XML files in Mercurial repos. The setup I'm thinking of: Each user has a repo with a branch where he manages his own profile, and a number of branches where he can pull and merge other profiles from that branch of another user. So for example I have my own profile branch and a branch labeled friends, in which I want to pull the profile branches of a few remote repos, to collect like a collection of profiles. I figured out that since the repos are unrelated I need to use -f, but I can't figure out how to pull and merge only a single branch into another. So I want like me friend someone profile ---> friends <--- profile \-> family friends <--- profile Is this even possible? Should I use separate repos instead? Is there a better solution?

  Read the article

• Understanding branching strategy/workflow correctly

  - by burnersk

  I'm using svn without branches (trunk-only) for a very long time at my workplace. I had discovered most or all of the issues related to projects which do not have any branching strategy. Unlikely this is not going to change at my workplace but for my private projects. For my private projects which most includes coworkers and working together at the same time on different features I like to have an robust branching strategy with supports long-term releases powered by git. I find out that the Atlassian Toolchain (JIRA, Stash and Bamboo) helped me most and it also recommending me an branching strategy which I like to verify for the team needs. The branching strategy was taken directly from Atlassian Stash recommendation with a small modification to the hotfix branch tree. All hotfixes should also merged into mainline. The branching strategy in words mainline (also known as master with git or trunk with svn) contains the "state of the art" developing release. Everything here was successfully checked with various automated tests (through Bamboo) and looks like everything is working. It is not proven as working because of possible missing tests. It is ready to use but not recommended for production. feature covers all new features which are not completely finished. Once a feature is finished it will be merged into mainline. Sample branch: feature/ISSUE-2-A-nice-Feature bugfix fixes non-critical bugs which can wait for the next normal release. Sample branch: bugfix/ISSUE-1-Some-typos production owns the latest release. hotfix fixes critical bugs which have to be release urgent to mainline, production and all affected long-term *release*es. Sample branch: hotfix/ISSUE-3-Check-your-math release is for long-term maintenance. Sample branches: release/1.0, release/1.1 release/1.0-rc1 I am not an expert so please provide me feedback. Which problems might appear? Which parts are missing or slowing down the productivity?

  Read the article

• design a large scale network for an organization

  - by Essam

  i want to design a large scale network for an organization with HQ and two branches. i want to use a class A subnet. if i am using the network address 30.0.0.0 for the whole organization how can it be different from another organization company or whatever which is using the same address in another country? now i have the three locations for this organization,so i need 5 subnets [one for the HQ,two for branch A and branch B , one for connecting A to HQ and one for connecting branch B with HQ since i will use central DHCP server at the HQ,is that (number of subnetting) right? is it advisable to use class A or class B for this organization it term of address that will be wasted (let's say it is a university with two branches in two different states)?!

  Read the article

• Which platform to choose, Java or .NET?

  - by salman

  I am working in a private bank, a leading mid size bank in local market. We are going to create our core banking solution. Existing solution has been developed on Java using IBM Visual Age 4.0. It is very important to discuss architecture first, we have currently more than 350 branches working in standalone mode, and it means they are working in self contained environment. They have their own database server (IBM DB2 9.7) and they are communicating with other branches via sockets to send and receive data. Having experience of .NET for more than 5 years I am trying to convince my superiors to choose .NET platform, but they are reluctant and unwilling. It is my job to encourage them for choosing best available platform to create large scale enterprise application. In simple word, we are going to create a very large scale enterprise financial application, a centralize and integrated which connects all branch networks plus having scalable, solid architecture that easily evolve over time. I want professional people to comment on above scenarios. Which platform to choose .NET or Java? Our all resource is currently working in Java, we have homogeneous environment (no Linux, no Mac and no UNIX). Any idea, any thoughts, any points technical or non-technical i.e. administrative or management point of view will be really appreciated.

  Read the article

• github team workflow - to fork or not?

  - by aporat

  We're a small team of web developers currently using subversion but soon we're making a switch to github. I'm looking at different types of github workflows, and we're not sure if the whole forking concept in github for each developer is such a good idea for us. If we use forks, I understand each developer will have his own private remote & local repositories. I'm worried it will make pushing changesets hard and too complex. Also, my biggest concern is that it will force each developer to have 2 remotes: origin (which is the remote fork) and an upstream (which is used to "sync" changes from the main repository). Not sure if it's such a easy way to do things. This is similar to the workflow explained here: https://github.com/usm-data-analysis/usm-data-analysis.github.com/wiki/Git-workflow If we don't use forks, we can probably get by fine by using a central repo creating a branch for each task we're working on, and merge them into the development branch on the same repository. It means we won't be able to restrict merging of branches and might be a little messy to have many branches on the central repository. Any suggestions from teams who tried both workflow?

  Read the article

• Branching and CI Builds with Agile

  - by Bob Horn

  We follow many agile processes, including automated tests, continuous integration, sprint reviews, etc... We're currently having a debate about how often we should branch release builds. We've been doing two-week sprints and trying to deploy to production at the end of each sprint. Some of us think we should be branching every sprint. Some of us think that's overkill. If a project encompasses three Visual Studio solutions, and we branch every sprint, then that's three branches, and three CI builds to create every two weeks. If we do this for six months, we'll end up with 36 branches and 36 CI builds. There is overhead involved in that. For those of us that think that branching every sprint is overkill, we don't have a very good alternative. On my last project, we deployed some solutions from the Main trunk. Yeah, that's not good, but it saved on some of the overhead. What's the right way to manage branching/releasing and CI builds, using agile, when we have such short (two-week) sprint cycles?

  Read the article

• Tips for achieving "continual" delivery

  - by Ben

  A team is experiencing difficulty releasing software on a frequent basis (once every week). What follows is a typical release timeline: During the iteration: Developers work on stories on the backlog on short-lived (this is enthusiastically enforced) feature branches based on the master branch. Developers frequently pull their feature branches into the integration branch, which is continually built and tested (as far as the test coverage goes) automatically. The testers have the ability to auto-deploy integration to a staging environment and this occurs multiple times per week, enabling continual running of their test suites. Every Monday: there is a release planning meeting to determine which stories are "known good" (based on the testers' work), and hence will be in the release. If there is a known issue with a story, the source branch is pulled out of integration. no new code (only bug fixes requested by the testers) may be pulled into integration on this Monday to ensure the testers have a stable codebase to cut a release from. Every Tuesday: The testers have tested the integration branch as much as they possibly can have given the time available and there are no known bugs so a release is cut and pushed out to the production nodes slowly. This sounds OK in practise, but we have found that it is incredibly difficult to achieve. The team sees the following symptoms "subtle" bugs are found on production that were not identified on the staging environment. last minute hot-fixes continue into the Tuesday. problems on the production environment require roll-backs which blocks continued development until a successful live deployment is achieved and the master branch can be updated (and hence branched from). I think test coverage, code quality, ability to regression test quickly, last minute changes and environmental differences are at play here. Can anyone offer any advice regarding how best to achieve "continual" delivery?

  Read the article

• How to procedurally (create) grow an artistic (2D) tree in real-time (L-System?).

  - by lalan

  Recently I programmed an L-system module, It got me interested further. I am a Plants vs Zombies junkie as well, really liked the concept of Tree of Wisdom. Would love to create similar procedural art just for fun and learn more. Question: How should I approach the process of creating an artistic tree (2d perhaps with fixed camera/perspective) dynamically? Ideally I would like to start with a plant (only a stem with a leaf) and grow it dynamically using some influence (input/user action) over its structure. These influences may result in different type of branching, curves in branches, its spread, location of fruits, color of flowers, etc. Want it to be really full of life/spirit. :) Plants vs Zombies: Tree of wisdom It would be great to dynamically grow a similar tree, but with lot more variation and animations happening. My Background: Student / Programmer, have used few game engines (Ogre3d, cocos2d, unity). Haven't really programmed directly using openGL, trying to fix that :). I am ready to spend considerable time, Please let me know about the APIs? and how would an expert like you would take on this problem? Why 2D? I think it's easier to solve the problem only considering 2 dimensions. Artistic inspirations: Only the tree, with fruits and leaves, without the shrubs at the bottom The large tree (visible branches, green leaves, flowers, fruits, etc) on the left, behind monkey. PixelJunk's Eden (Art style inspiration). Procedurally Generated Apple Tree using Fractals Please let me know if it was easy for you to understand the question, I may elaborate further. I hope a discussion of various approach would be helpful for everyone. You guys are awesome.

  Read the article

• Is it good idea to require to commit only working code?

  - by Astronavigator

  Sometimes I hear people saying something like "All committed code must be working". In some articles people even write descriptions how to create svn or git hooks that compile and test code before commit. In my company we usually create one branch for a feature, and one programmer usually works in this branch. I often (1 per 100, I think and as I think with good reason) do non-compilable commits. It seems to me that requirement of "always compilable/stable" commits conflicts with the idea of frequent commits. A programmer would rather make one commit in a week than test the whole project's stability/compilability ten times a day. For only compilable code I use tags and some selected branches (trunk etc). I see these reasons to commit not fully working or not compilable code: If I develop a new feature, it is hard to make it work writing a few lines of code. If I am editing a feature, it is again sometimes hard to keep code working every time. If I am changing some function's prototype or interface, I would also make hundreds of changes, not mechanical changes, but intellectual. Sometimes one of them could cause me to carry out hundreds of commits (but if I want all commits to be stable I should commit 1 time instead of 100). In all these cases to make stable commits I would make commits containing many-many-many changes and it will be very-very-very hard to find out "What happened in this commit?". Another aspect of this problem is that compiling code gives no guarantee of proper working. So is it good idea to require every commit to be stable/compilable? Does it depends on branching model or CVS? In your company, is it forbidden to make non compilable commits? Is it (and why) a bad idea to use only selected branches (including trunk) and tags for stable versions?

  Read the article

• Providing internet access to users in an Enterprise (MPLS ) Network

  - by Vivek Bernard

  Scenario I'm planning to setup a typical Head Office - Branch Office(s) Network Setup. there will be 25 branch offices in India of two will be overseas (one in US and the other in UK). All these will be connected via MPLS. Additional details: No of Concurrent users in each office is going to be 25 tranlating to 650 users The requirement is to provide "proxied" internet connectivity to the branch offices. How should I go about doing it? Plan A: Buying an internet leased line in the Head Office and distribute it through an internal proxy server to all the branches Plan B Buying separate internet lines for all the branches and setup individual proxies to all the branch offices.

  Read the article

• Can DVCSs enforce a specific workflow?

  - by dukeofgaming

  So, I have this little debate at work where some of my colleagues (which are actually in charge of administrating our Perforce instance) say that workflows are strictly a process thing, and that the tools that we use (in this case, the version control system) have no take on it. In otherwords, the point that they make is that workflows (and their execution) are tool-agnostic. My take on this is that DVCSs are better at encouraging people in more flexible and well-defined ways, because of the inherent branching occurring in the background (anonymous branches), and that you can enforce workflows through the deployment model you establish (e.g. pull requests through repository management, dictator/liutenant roles with their machines setup as servers, etc.) I think in CVCSs you have to enforce workflows through policies and policing, because there is only one way to share the code, while in DVCSs you just go with the flow based on the infrastructure/permissions that were setup for you. Even when I have provided the earlier arguments, I'm still unable to fully convince them. Am I saying something the wrong way?, if not, what other arguments or examples do you think would be useful to convince them? Edit: The main workflow we have been focusing on, because it makes sense to both sides is the Dictator/Lieutenants workflow: My argument for this particular workflow is that there is no pipeline in a CVCS (because there is just sharing work in a centralized way), whereas there is an actual pipeline in DVCSs depending on how you deploy read/write permissions. Their argument is that this workflow can be done through branching, and while they do this in some projects (due to policy/policing) in other projects they forbid developers from creating branches.

  Read the article

• Maintaining Two Separate Software Versions From the Same Codebase in Version Control

  - by Joseph

  Let's say that I am writing two different versions of the same software/program/app/script and storing them under version control. The first version is a free "Basic" version, while the second is a paid "Premium" version that takes the codebase of the free version and expands upon it with a few extra value-added features. Any new patches, fixes, or features need to find their way into both versions. I am currently considering using master and develop branches for the main codebase (free version) along side master-premium and develop-premium branches for the paid version. When a change is made to the free version and merged to the master branch (after thorough testing on develop of course), it gets copied over to the develop-premium branch via the cherry-pick command for more testing and then merged into master-premium. Is this the best workflow to handle this situation? Are there any potential problems, caveats, or pitfalls to be aware of? Is there a better branching strategy than what I have already come up with? Your feedback is highly appreciated! P.S. This is for a PHP script stored in Git, but the answers should apply to any language or VCS.

  Read the article

• SVN Error when connecting from MacBook

  - by user66850

  This is drying me nuts for last 5 days!!! Out of the blue 5 days ago, SVN access from my MacBook Pro failed: I cannot access any SVN (i.e. not in our University or open source projects etc). The error obtain when performing 'svn co', or any other svn commands is shown below. This is same message is obtained irrespective of the svn repository (i.e. it is something due to my Macbook) svn co http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/i2mi/branches/GROUPER_1_6_BRANCH/ svn: OPTIONS of 'http://anonsvn.internet2.edu/svn/i2mi/branches/GROUPER_1_6_BRANCH': Could not read status line: connection was closed by server (http://anonsvn.internet2.edu)

  Read the article

• Develop in trunk and then branch off, or in release branch and then merge back?

  - by Torben Gundtofte-Bruun

  Say that we've decided on following a "release-based" branching strategy, so we'll have a branch for each release, and we can add maintenance updates as sub-branches from those. Does it matter whether we: develop and stabilize a new release in the trunk and then "save" that state in a new release branch; or first create that release branch and only merge into the trunk when the branch is stable? I find the former to be easier to deal with (less merging necessary), especially when we don't develop on multiple upcoming releases at the same time. Under normal circumstances we would all be working on the trunk, and only work on released branches if there are bugs to fix. What is the trunk actually used for in the latter approach? It seems to be almost obsolete, because I could create a future release branch based on the most recent released branch rather than from the trunk. Details based on comment below: Our product consists of a base platform and a number of modules on top; each is developed and even distributed separately from each other. Most team members work on several of these areas, so there's partial overlap between people. We generally work only on 1 future release and not at all on existing releases. One or two might work on a bugfix for an existing release for short periods of time. Our work isn't compiled and it's a mix of Unix shell scripts, XML configuration files, SQL packages, and more -- so there's no way to have push-button builds that can be tested. That's done manually, which is a bit laborious. A release cycle is typically half a year or more for the base platform; often 1 month for the modules.

  Read the article

• Importing an existing project into Git

  - by Andy

  Background During the course of developing our site (ASP.NET), we discovered that our existing source control (SourceGear Vault) wasn't working for us. So, we decided to migrate to Git. The translation has been less than smooth though. Our site is broken up into three environments DEV, QA, and PROD. For tho most part, DEV and the source control repo have been in sync with each other. There is one branch in the repo, if a page was going to be moved up to QA then the file was moved manually, same thing with stuff that was ready for PROD. So, our current QA and PROD environments do not correspond to any particular commit in the master branch. Clarification: The QA and PROD branches are not currently, nor have they ever been in source control. The Question How do I move QA and PROD into Git? Should I forget about the history we've maintained up to this point and start over with a new repo? I could start with everything on PROD, then make a branch and pull in everything from QA, and then make another branch off of that with DEV. That way not only will the branches reflect the differences in the environments, they'll be in the right order chronologically with the newest commits in the DEV branch. What I've tried so far I thought about creating a QA branch off of the current master and using robocopy to make the working folder look like the current QA environment. This doesn't work because the new commit from QA will remove new files from DEV and that will remove them when we merge up, I suspect there will be similar problems if I started QA at an earlier (though not exact) commit from DEV.

  Read the article

• github team workflow - to fork or not?

  - by aporat

  We're a small team of web developers currently using subversion but soon we're making a switch to github. I'm looking at different types of github workflows, and we're not sure if the whole forking concept in github for each developer is such a good idea for us. If we use forks, I understand each developer will have his own private remote & local repositories. I'm worried it will make pushing changesets hard and too complex. Also, my biggest concern is that it will force each developer to have 2 remotes: origin (which is the remote fork) and an upstream (which is used to "sync" changes from the main repository). Not sure if it's such a easy way to do things. This is similar to the workflow explained here: https://github.com/usm-data-analysis/usm-data-analysis.github.com/wiki/Git-workflow If we don't use forks, we can probably get by fine by using a central repo creating a branch for each task we're working on, and merge them into the development branch on the same repository. It means we won't be able to restrict merging of branches and might be a little messy to have many branches on the central repository. Any suggestions from teams who tried both workflow?

  Read the article

• Working with Git on multiple machines

  - by Tesserex

  This may sound a bit strange, but I'm wondering about a good way to work in Git from multiple machines networked together in some way. It looks to me like I have two options, and I can see benefits on both sides: Use git itself for sharing, each machine has its own repo and you have to fetch between them. You can work on either machine even if the other is offline. This by itself is pretty big I think. Use one repo that is shared over the network between machines. No need to do git pulls every time you switch machines, since your code is always up to date. Never worry that you forgot to push code from your other non-hosting machine, which is now out of reach, since you were working off a fileshare on this machine. My intuition says that everyone generally goes with the first option. But the downside I see is that you might not always be able to access code from your other machines, and I certainly don't want to push all my WIP branches to github at the end of every day. I also don't want to have to leave my computers on all the time so I can fetch from them directly. Lastly a minor point is that all the git commands to keep multiple branches up to date can get tedious. Is there a third handle on this situation? Maybe some third party tools are available that help make this process easier? If you deal with this situation regularly, what do you suggest?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >