Search Results

Search found 4953 results on 199 pages for 'git commit'.

Page 11/199 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

• error: cannot fork() for status: Resource temporarily unavailable (git)

  - by Elnaz Shahmehr

  when I want to do something: add , remove, pull , push in github, I just have this error in my terminal Thanks in advance! selnaz:iOS-Tidinfo Lnaz$ git add . error: cannot fork() for status: Resource temporarily unavailable fatal: Could not run git status --porcelain fatal: git status --porcelain failed fatal: git status --porcelain failed fatal: git status --porcelain failed fatal: git status --porcelain failed fatal: git status --porcelain failed fatal: git status --porcelain failed Edit: selnaz:iOS-Tidinfo Lnaz$ ulimit -a core file size (blocks, -c) 0 data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited file size (blocks, -f) unlimited max locked memory (kbytes, -l) unlimited max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited open files (-n) 256 pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 1 stack size (kbytes, -s) 8192 cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited max user processes (-u) 709 virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited Edit2 selnaz:iOS-Tidinfo Lnaz$ ps xfu | wc -l ps: illegal option -- f usage: ps [-AaCcEefhjlMmrSTvwXx] [-O fmt | -o fmt] [-G gid[,gid...]] [-u] [-p pid[,pid...]] [-t tty[,tty...]] [-U user[,user...]] ps [-L] 0

  Read the article

• Yum Error Installing Git from kernel.org Repo

  - by Lance

  I want to install the latest version of Git using yum and the RPM repository on kernel.org, but adding the repo to yum.repos.d causes yum to fail with checksum errors. The prevailing solution to this issue seems to be to simply use the repository at Webtatic as answered here on superuser. I know I can also install an older version of Git using the EPEL repo, or compile from the latest source tarball, but honestly I want to understand why I'm having issues using the kernel.org repo. Here’s the workflow, after a clean install of CentOS 5.5 and "yum update": [root]# wget -P /etc/yum.repos.d/ http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/git.repo [root]# yum clean all [root]# yum repolist Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Determining fastest mirrors * addons: mirrors.netdna.com * base: mirror.clarkson.edu * epel: serverbeach1.fedoraproject.org * extras: centos.mirror.nac.net * updates: mirror.cogentco.com addons | 951 B 00:00 addons/primary | 202 B 00:00 base | 2.1 kB 00:00 base/primary_db | 1.6 MB 00:01 epel | 3.7 kB 00:00 epel/primary_db | 2.8 MB 00:01 extras | 2.1 kB 00:00 extras/primary_db | 188 kB 00:00 git | 1.2 kB 00:00 git/primary | 155 kB 00:00 http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/i386/repodata/primary.xml.gz: [Errno -3] Error performing checksum Trying other mirror. git/primary | 155 kB 00:00 http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/i386/repodata/primary.xml.gz: [Errno -3] Error performing checksum Trying other mirror. Error: failure: repodata/primary.xml.gz from git: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. Any suggestions as to a solution, or details why the kernel.org repo has this issue? (Sorry I can't include more links to my references, but I don't have the reputation for that yet.)

  Read the article

• Yum Error Installing Git from kernel.org Repo

  - by Lance

  I want to install the latest version of Git using yum and the RPM repository on kernel.org, but adding the repo to yum.repos.d causes yum to fail with checksum errors. The prevailing solution to this issue seems to be to simply use the repository at Webtatic as answered here on superuser. I know I can also install an older version of Git using the EPEL repo, or compile from the latest source tarball, but honestly I want to understand why I'm having issues using the kernel.org repo. Here’s the workflow, after a clean install of CentOS 5.5 and "yum update": [root]# wget -P /etc/yum.repos.d/ http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/git.repo [root]# yum clean all [root]# yum repolist Loaded plugins: fastestmirror Determining fastest mirrors * addons: mirrors.netdna.com * base: mirror.clarkson.edu * epel: serverbeach1.fedoraproject.org * extras: centos.mirror.nac.net * updates: mirror.cogentco.com addons | 951 B 00:00 addons/primary | 202 B 00:00 base | 2.1 kB 00:00 base/primary_db | 1.6 MB 00:01 epel | 3.7 kB 00:00 epel/primary_db | 2.8 MB 00:01 extras | 2.1 kB 00:00 extras/primary_db | 188 kB 00:00 git | 1.2 kB 00:00 git/primary | 155 kB 00:00 http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/i386/repodata/primary.xml.gz: [Errno -3] Error performing checksum Trying other mirror. git/primary | 155 kB 00:00 http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/RPMS/i386/repodata/primary.xml.gz: [Errno -3] Error performing checksum Trying other mirror. Error: failure: repodata/primary.xml.gz from git: [Errno 256] No more mirrors to try. Any suggestions as to a solution, or details why the kernel.org repo has this issue? (Sorry I can't include more links to my references, but I don't have the reputation for that yet.)

  Read the article

• correct file permissions for trac and git user to access gitolite server repos

  - by klemens

  hi, sounds like a stupid questions (to me), but i couldn't find any info. on my server i host some git repositories via gitolite, and have a trac for every repository. i have a user called git to push/pull from server (git clone git@server:repo). and trac is a apache vhost with mod_wsgi. this runs with the www-data user. so what riddles me (maybe because I have not much of a clue about file-permissions at all) is whats the best permissions setup (chown, chmod) for the git repositories (/home/git/repositories/...). www-data (or trac) needs to at least read permissions (i think). and git (or gitolite) needs obviously read/write permissions to push changesets. i tried a little bit around (i.e. adding www-data and/or git to the www-data/git group), but didn't got it right. at least one of the two don't work (git or trac). any suggestions are highly appreciated. regard, klemens

  Read the article

• setting the PATH for Git (not for me)

  - by Iain

  Hi, I'm running OSX 10.6.5 with Git 1.7.1 I have git installed in a non-standard location (though that really should be the standard on a mac;-) in /Library/Frameworks/Git.framework. My own PATH is set fine, git works fine, until... I set up a pre-commit hook with a Ruby script: $ git commit -m "added some Yard documentation" .git/hooks/pre-commit: line 1: #!/usr/bin/env: No such file or directory The pre-commit.sample runs ok, so it appears that git can't find /usr/bin/env, or much else as I've tried shebanging it directly to ruby etc. Just /bin/sh is ok. So, where does Git get it's PATH? because it's not using mine or this wouldn't be happening. And more to the point, how do I get it to see /usr/bin/env ? I've tested the ruby script already, it works. Just to add: $ cat /etc/paths /usr/bin /bin /usr/sbin /sbin /usr/local/bin $ cat /etc/paths.d/git /Library/Frameworks/Git.framework/Programs The first few lines of the Ruby script (which runs via ./pre-commit or ruby pre-commit) #!/usr/bin/env ruby -wKU class String def expand_path File.expand_path self end def parent_dir File.dirname self.expand_path end end

  Read the article

• Private Git repo using Smart HTTP with LDAP authentification

  - by ALOToverflow

  I've been crawling the interwebz and getting my hands dirty for the last few days, but I can't seem to make it all work together. I managed to get a HTTP repo working with Ubuntu 10.04 over Smart HTTP (pull and push over HTTP) for a single repo. This means that I do the initial setup over SSH to the server (git init --bare) and after that the clients can pull and push to it (git clone http://servername/allgitrepos/repo.git). Unfortunately it's impossible to add a new repo without SSHing to the server and adding it manually) i.e. git push http://servername/allgitrepos/repo2.git (allgitrepos is available for everyone to read-write and execute) would fail talking about git update-server-info (which seems to be a general error message). So far the repository is anonymous, so I would like to authenticate using LDAP and also use the LDAP creds to make the git commit. So, how can I push new repos to the server and how can I use the LDAP creds to make the git commit. Thanks

  Read the article

• How to set permissions or alter a git commit process when using local repositories

  - by Tony

  I have a server that contains a central git repository and one of my co-worker's development environment. My co-worker's repository's origin is the central git repository and he pushes there when he has some code to share. Likewise, I develop locally and push to the central git repository when I have some code to share, so my repository's origin is also the central git repository. The issue is that I have the central git repository under a "git" user's home directory. So when I push I am actually SSH'ing into the the server as the "git" user. To be even more clear, my config has these lines: $ more .git/config [remote "origin"] fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/* url = [email protected]:fsg [branch "master"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/master When I push, git handles this SSH + push seamlessly with I am guessing some sort of git shell. The issue is that when my coworker pushes, he is logged in as himself for a user and gets a bunch of crazy permission errors. Is there a typical way to solve this problem without opening up git's directories to a group? I think this will be problematic when I push and therefore overwrite the the repository and those permissions are reset. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Is there a way to accumulate a commit message with git while examing changes?

  - by carleeto

  I use "git add -p" to stage my changes. What I'd like to be able to do is to accumulate a commit message as I'm examining my changes and then when I call "git commit", it is already filled out for me and allows me to make changes before I commit. Now, its easy to do with git gui by simply examining the changes and editing the commit message text box accordingly, but I'm a command line guy and was wondering if this is possible at the command line.

  Read the article

• How do I force fetching of tags if I have the --no-tags option set

  - by douglas.meyer

  Whenever I run git fetch it fetches all the tags from origin. In a project with lots of tags, this can get quite bothersome. So I ran git config remote.origin.tagopt --no-tags so fetching will no-longer fetch tags. However, there are some times when I do want to fetch tags, or a single tag. Does anyone know how to do this? (besides removing that configuration, and running git fetch --no-tags every time) Thanks!

  Read the article

• Git branching / rebasing good practices

  - by Pawel Krupinski

  I have a following scenario: 3 branches: - Master - MyBranch branched off Master for the purpose of developing a new feature of the system - MyBranchLocal branched off MyBranch as my local copy of the branch MyBranch is being rebased against and pushed to by other developers (who are working on the same feature as I am). As the owner of the MyBranch branch I want to keep it in sync with Master by rebasing. I also need to merge the changes I make to MyBranchLocal with MyBranch. What is a good way to do that? Couple of possible scenarios I tried so far: I. 1. Commit change to MyBranchLocal 2. Rebase MyBranch against Master 3. Rebase MyBranchLocal against MyBranch 4. Merge MyBranch with MyBranchLocal II. 1. Commit change to MyBranchLocal 2. Merge MyBranch with MyBranchLocal 3. Rebase MyBranch against Master 4. Rebase MyBranchLocal against MyBranch III. 1. Commit change to MyBranchLocal 2. Rebase MyBranch against Master 3. Merge MyBranch with MyBranchLocal 4. Rebase MyBranchLocal against MyBranch I already know that scenario III seems to be messing the commit history up a lot, potentially duplicating commits. What is your experience? What scenarios do you recommend?

  Read the article

• How Do You Get the bufspec While Using Vimdiff Through Git

  - by Elizabeth Buckwalter

  I've read Vimdiff and Viewing differences with Vimdiff plus doing various google searches using things like "vimdiff multiple", "vimdiff git", "vimdiff commands" etc. When using do or diffg I get the error "More than two buffers in diff mode, don't know which one to use". When using diffg v:fname_in I get "No matching buffer for v:fname_in". From the vimdiff documentation: :[range]diffg[et] [bufspec] Modify the current buffer to undo difference with another buffer. If [bufspec] is given, that buffer is used. If [bufspec] refers to the current buffer then nothing happens. Otherwise this only works if there is one other buffer in diff mode. and more: When 'diffexpr' is not empty, Vim evaluates to obtain a diff file in the format mentioned. These variables are set to the file names used: v:fname_in original file v:fname_new new version of the same file v:fname_out resulting diff file So, I need to get the name of bufspec, but the default variables (fname_in, fname_new, and fname_out) aren't set. I ran the command git mergetool on a linux box through a terminal. [Edit] A partial solution that bred more questions. I used the "filename" at the bottom of the buffer. It's only a half answer, because occasionally I get a file does not exist error. I believe it's consistently the remote version of the file that "does not exist". I suspect this has something to do with git and indexing. How do you get the bufspec value consistently while using vimdiff through git-mergetool?

  Read the article

• Git-svn branch hoses dcommit when using an odd branch structure

  - by Chuck Vose

  I had a boss, past-tense, who decided to put svn branches in the same folder as trunk. Normally, this wouldn't affect me that much but since I'm using git-svn things are going so well. After I did a fetch it created a folder for each branch in my root folder so I have three folders, drupal, trunk, and client. The drupal folder is git's master branch, client and trunk are the svn branches. Merging and committing works great, in fact everything git related is working superb. However dcommit is totally hosed, it's trying to commit a folder called client and one called trunk. I can't even imagine what havoc this would cause for svn later on. So my question is, what have I done wrong in my .git/config and is there anything I can do to fix this or am I going to have to suffer and go back to using svn? Please don't make me go back. I don't think I can take it anymore. Bastard boss knows how to leave a legacy. [svn-remote "svn"] url = https://svn.mydomain.com/svn/project_name fetch = trunk:refs/remotes/trunk branches = *:refs/remotes/* tags = tags/*:refs/remotes/tags/* Normally the branches line would look like this (when using --stdlayout): branches = branches/*:refs/remotes/branches/* ls output is thus: $ ls client/ docs/ drupal/ sql/ trunk/

  Read the article

• git-svn cannot create a branch to follow SVN branching

  - by Serhiy Yakovyn

  Hello everybody, I'm struggling with the following issue. When I continue fetching revisions from SVN with git svn fetch I'm getting the following error (removed https to be able to post question): *Found possible branch point: somecompany.com/product/trunk = somecompany.com/product/branches/deep/branches/product-001, 72666 Found branch parent: (refs/remotes/deep/branches/product-001) b685b7b92813885fdf 6b8e2663daf884bf504b14 Following parent with do_switch Successfully followed parent error: 'refs/remotes/deep' exists; cannot create 'refs/remotes/deep/branches/product-001' fatal: Cannot lock the ref 'refs/remotes/deep/branches/product-001'. update-ref -m r72667 refs/remotes/deep/branches/product-001 df51920e8f0a53f26507 c2679eb6a9dbad91e0d6: command returned error: 128* This happened because I was fetching revisions using the default filter for SVN branches: [svn-remote "svn"] url = https://somecompany.com/someproduct fetch = trunk:refs/remotes/trunk branches = branches/*:refs/remotes/* tags = tags/*:refs/remotes/tags/* Now, I have the line below added, but it's too late: branches = branches/deep/branches/*:refs/remotes/deep/branches/* I have tried to fix this by using git reset to remove all the commits. Actually I can see from the error message that git is trying right thing, but cannot because of the branch remotes/deep being existing. I have tried to search for 2 possible solutions: 1. Remove that branch (remotes/deep), but as it is tracked by git as a remote, I was not able to find any solution for that. 2. Remove the whole history related to that branch. No success too :( Does anybody know how to deal with my issue? Thank you in advance, Serhiy Y

  Read the article

• How to combine two separate unrelated Git repositories into one with single history timeline

  - by Antony

  I have two unrelated (not sharing any ancestor check in) Git repositories, one is a super repository which consists a number of smaller projects (Lets call it repository A). Another one is just a makeshift local Git repository for a smaller project (lets call it repository B). Graphically, it would look like this A0-B0-C0-D0-E0-F0-G0-HEAD (repo A) A0-B0-C0-D0-E0-F0-G0-HEAD (remote/master bare repo pulled & pushed from repo A) A1-B1-C1-D1-E1-HEAD (repo B) Ideally, I would really like to merge repo B into repo A with a single history timeline. So it would appear that I originally started project in repo A. Graphically, this would be the ideal end result A0-A1-B1-B0-D1-C0-D0-E0-F0-G0-E1-H(from repo B)-HEAD (new repo A) A0-A1-B1-B0-D1-C0-D0-E0-F0-G0-E1-H(from repo B)-HEAD (remote/master bare repo pulled & pushed from repo A) I have been doing some reading with submodules and subtree (Pro Git is a pretty good book by the way), but both of them seem to cater solution towards maintaining two separate branch with sub module being able to pull changes from upstream and subtree being slightly less headache. Both solution require additional and specialized git commands to handle check ins and sync between master and sub tree/module branch. Both solution also result in multiple time-lines (with --squash you even get 3 timelines with subtree). The closest solution from SO seems to talk about "graft", but is that really it? The goal is to have a single unified repository where I can pull/push check-ins, so that there are no more repo B, just repo A in the end.

  Read the article

• How to automatically split git commits to separate changes to a single file

  - by Hercynium

  I'm just plain stuck as to how to accomplish this, or if it's even possible. Even it it can be done, I wonder if it could be setting us up for a messed-up, unmanageable repository. I have set up two branches of the code-base. One is "master" and the other is "prod". The HEAD of prod is always the latest code in production, and master is the main development branch. Here's the problem, though: We're converting from CVS here at $work and most of the developers are still getting used to git. Their CVS workflow involved tagging versions of individual files for production, then updating the servers using the tag. Unfortunately, this has let to sloppy practices like committing unrelated changes together and then tagging the files after-the-fact... and the devs want to know how they can do the following: In their local repos, they hack and commit to their hearts' delight, then at the end of the day, be able to run a command that takes a list of files whose commits over the day get merged with their local prod - and only those files - even if those commits combine changes to other files. I know how to split commits with git rebase --interactive, but I have no clue how I would automate splitting commits at all, never mind the way I want to. I do realize the simplest thing would be to just tell them to switch the their prod branches, checkout the files from their master branches into the working tree then commit to prod. My problem with that is losing the history of their commits over the day.

  Read the article

• git repository sync between computers, when moving around?

  - by Johan

  Hi Let's say that I have a desktop pc and a laptop, and sometimes I work on the desktop and sometimes I work on the laptop. What is the easiest way to move a git repository back and forth? I want the git repositories to be identical, so that I can continue where I left of at the other computer. I would like to make sure that I have the same branches and tags on both of the computers. Thanks Johan Note: I know how to do this with SubVersion, but I'm curious on how this would work with git. If it is easier, I can use a third pc as classical server that the two pc:s can sync against. Note: Both computers are running Linux. Update: So let's try XANI:s idea with a bare git repo on a server, and the push command syntax from KingCrunch. In this example there is two clients and one server. So let's create the server part first. ssh user@server mkdir -p ~/git_test/workspace cd ~/git_test/workspace git --bare init So then from one of the other computers I try to get a copy of the repo with clone: git clone user@server:~/git_test/workspace/ Initialized empty Git repository in /home/user/git_test/repo1/workspace/.git/ warning: You appear to have cloned an empty repository. Then go into that repo and add a file: cd workspace/ echo "test1" > testfile1.txt git add testfile1.txt git commit testfile1.txt -m "Added file testfile1.txt" git push origin master Now the server is updated with testfile1.txt. Anyway, let's see if we can get this file from the other computer. mkdir -p ~/git_test/repo2 cd ~/git_test/repo2 git clone user@server:~/git_test/workspace/ cd workspace/ git pull And now we can see the testfile. At this point we can edit it with some more content and update the server again. echo "test2" >> testfile1.txt git add testfile1.txt git commit -m "Test2" git push origin master Then we go back to the first client and do a git pull to see the updated file. And now I can move back and forth between the two computers, and add a third if I like to.

  Read the article

• Tips on upgrading CVS to git/hg?

  - by meder

  We still use CVS, I use git and hg for my personal use though I'm still a novice at both, but I realize they're much more modern and better, faster, distributed, etc. It's just everyone is so accustomed to CVS that I feel a whole slew of issues could arise if I were to be the one that recommended and actually did the upgrading/porting/transitioning of our current CVS server to git or hg. Has anyone actually done this, recently? Could you offer any insight or tips in terms of influencing people to use git/hg, and just generic tips on the actual updating/transitioning if it were to take place? Are there common issues I should be aware of just in general?

  Read the article

• How can I undo my last git add/commit ?

  - by dan

  I edited a file and did: git add file.py git commit -m 'fixed bug' I then edited another file and performed a minor bug fix. I don't want two commits, one after the other, showing 'bug fix'. I want one commit with 'bug fixes'. How can I undo the last add/commit and change the first commit message? I was looking at the git reset, git revert, git undo commands but I don't want to screw up my repo with a guess EDIT: Found out how to do it: http://www.gitready.com/advanced/2009/02/10/squashing-commits-with-rebase.html

  Read the article

• github like workflow on private server over ssh

  - by Jesse

  I have an server (available via ssh) on the internet that my friend and I use for working on projects together. We have started using git for source control. Our setup currently is as follows: Friend created repository on server with git init named project.friend.git I cloned project.friend.git on server to project.jesse.git I then cloned project.jesse.git on server to my local machine using git clone jesse@server:/git_repos/project.jesse.git I work on my local machine and commit to the local machine. When I want to push my changes to the project.jesse.git on server I use git push origin master. My friend is working on project.friend.git. When I want to get his changes I do pull jesse@server:/git_repos/project.friend.git. Everything seems to be working fine, however, I am now getting the following error when I do git push origin master: localpc:project.jesse jesse$ git push origin master Counting objects: 100, done. Delta compression using up to 2 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (76/76), done. Writing objects: 100% (76/76), 15.98 KiB, done. Total 76 (delta 50), reused 0 (delta 0) warning: updating the current branch warning: Updating the currently checked out branch may cause confusion, warning: as the index and work tree do not reflect changes that are in HEAD. warning: As a result, you may see the changes you just pushed into it warning: reverted when you run 'git diff' over there, and you may want warning: to run 'git reset --hard' before starting to work to recover. warning: warning: You can set 'receive.denyCurrentBranch' configuration variable to warning: 'refuse' in the remote repository to forbid pushing into its warning: current branch. warning: To allow pushing into the current branch, you can set it to 'ignore'; warning: but this is not recommended unless you arranged to update its work warning: tree to match what you pushed in some other way. warning: warning: To squelch this message, you can set it to 'warn'. warning: warning: Note that the default will change in a future version of git warning: to refuse updating the current branch unless you have the warning: configuration variable set to either 'ignore' or 'warn'. To jesse@server:/git_repos/project.jesse.git c455cb7..e9ec677 master -> master Is this warning anything I need to be worried about? Like I said, everything seems to be working. My friend is able to pull my changes in from my branch. I have the clone on the server so he can access it since he does not have access to my local machine. Is there something that could be done better? Thanks!

  Read the article

• GIT: Checkout to a "Really" Specific Folder

  - by Rafid K. Abdullah

  I want to export, checkout, or whatever you call it from the index, HEAD, or any other commit, to a specific folder, how is that possible? Similar questions have already been asked: GIT: Checkout to a specific folder How to do a "git export" (like "svn export") But the problem with the proposed solution is that they preserve the relative path. So for example, if I use the mentioned method to check out the file nbapp/editblog.php to the folder temp, the file would be checked out in temp/nbapp/editblog.php! Is there anyway to checkout to 'temp' directly? Also, another important thing is to be able to check the HEAD or any other commit. The checkout-index (which allows using the --prefix option to checkout to a specific folder, while normal checkout doesn't allow) checks out only the index. What if I want to check out a file from a certain commit to a certain folder? A similar question has alread

  Read the article

• View a git diff-tree in a reasonable format

  - by Josh

  Howdy, I'm about to do a git svn dcommit to our svn repo -- and as is recommended in a number of places, I wanted to figure out exactly what I was going to be committing with a dry run. As such I ran: git svn dcommit -n This produced output: Committing to http://somerepo/svn/branches/somebranch diff-tree 1b937dacb302908602caedf1798171fb1b7afc81~1 1b937dacb302908602caedf1798171fb1b7afc81 How do I view this in a format that I can consume as a human? A list of modified files comes to mind. This is probably easy, but running git diff-tree on those hashes gives me a reference to a directory and a some other hashes, as well as some numbers. Not quite sure what to make of it. Thanks very much, Josh

  Read the article

• Cherry-picking from git to svn (or, How to keep a project history in git and releases in svn)

  - by Jawa

  I'm in a position where I'm the only one using git, everybody else is using svn. I've used 'git svn' to connect to the team svn and mostly it works just fine. Lately, I've started a project initially on my own, separate git repo and now I need to merge stuff from it to the svn. However, I still would like to keep tweaking the implementation in my own privacy between releases. So, what would be the most straightforward way to cherry-pick some commits from my private repo to the svn-cloned repo? Requirement is to keep full local history and have only one svn commit for each pick. Or is there some squashing to be done? As a method to achieve this, is there a way to get the private repo as another origin for the svn-cloned repo?

  Read the article

• Using Mercurial repository inside a Git one: Feasible? Sane?

  - by Portablejim

  I am thinking on creating a Mercurial repository under a Git repository. e.g. ..../git-repository/directory/hg-repo/ The 2 repositories Is it possible to manage (keeping your sanity)? How similiar is it to this? I am a computer science student at University. I manage my work in Git, mainly as a distribution mechanism (after realizing that rsync fails when you have changes in more than one place) between my desktop and usb drive. I try use of Git as a VCS as I do work. I have finished a semester where I did a small group project to prepare for a larger group project next year. We had to use Subversion, and experienced the joys of a centralised VCS (including downtime). I tried to keep the subversion repository separate to my Git repository for the subject**, however it was annoying that it was seperate (not in the place where I store assignments). I therefore moved to using an Subversion repository inside my Git repository. As I think ahead (maybe I am thinking too far ahead) I realise that I will have to try and convince people to use a DVCS and Mercurial will probably be the one that is preferred (Windows and Mac GUI support, closer to Subversion). Having done some research into the whole Git vs Mercurial debate (however not used Mercurial at all) I still prefer Git. Can I have a Mercurial repository inside a Git one without going mad (or it ruining something)? Or is it something that I should not consider at all? (Or is it a bad question that should be deleted?) ** I think outside of Australia it is called a course

  Read the article

• Rebasing a branch which is public

  - by Dror

  I'm failing to understand how to use git-rebase, and I consider the following example. Let's start a repository in ~/tmp/repo: $ git init Then add a file foo $ echo "hello world" > foo which is then added and committed: $ git add foo $ git commit -m "Added foo" Next, I started a remote repository. In ~/tmp/bare.git I ran $ git init --bare In order to link repo to bare.git I ran $ git remote add origin ../bare.git/ $ git push --set-upstream origin master Next, lets branch, add a file and set an upstream for the new branch b1: $ git checkout -b b1 $ echo "bar" > foo2 $ git add foo2 $ git commit -m "add foo2 in b1" $ git push --set-upstream origin b1 Now it is time to switch back to master and change something there: $ echo "change foo" > foo $ git commit -a -m "changed foo in master" $ git push At this point in master the file foo contain changed foo, while in b1 it is still hello world. Finally, I want to sync b1 with the progress made in master. $ git checkout b1 $ git fetch origin $ git rebase origin/master At this point git st returns: # On branch b1 # Your branch and 'origin/b1' have diverged, # and have 2 and 1 different commit each, respectively. # (use "git pull" to merge the remote branch into yours) # nothing to commit, working directory clean At this point the content of foo in the branch b1 is change foo as well. So what does this warning mean? I expected I should do a git push, git suggests to do git pull... According to this answer, this is more or less it, and in his comment @FrerichRaabe explicitly say that I don't need to do a pull. What's going on here? What is the danger, how should one proceed? How should the history be kept consistent? What is the interplay between the case described above and the following citation: Do not rebase commits that you have pushed to a public repository. taken from pro git book. I guess it is somehow related, and if not I would love to know why. What's the relation between the above scenario and the procedure I described in this post.

  Read the article

• Git workflow for small teams

  - by janos

  I'm working on a git workflow to implement in a small team. The core ideas in the workflow: there is a shared project master that all team members can write to all development is done exclusively on feature branches feature branches are code reviewed by a team member other than the branch author the feature branch is eventually merged into the shared master and the cycle starts again The article explains the steps in this cycle in detail: https://github.com/janosgyerik/git-workflows-book/blob/small-team-workflow/chapter05.md Does this make sense or am I missing something?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >