Search Results

Search found 988 results on 40 pages for 'branching and merging'.

Page 13/40 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • How do I store in subversion my customizations to a public open source project?

    - by Clyde
    Hi, I'm working on customizing a couple of open source projects in ways that are very much personalized -- i.e., not appropriate to send the patches back to the maintainers for the public. One of them is stored in CVS, one in SVN. I use SVN for my own work. The CVS project is fine. I check the tree in to my svn repository, including the CVS directories. I can commit all my changes, and still do a cvs update to stay up to date with bug fixes/features of the public project. How should I work on the svn project? Is there a 'best practice' or known procedure for this kind of scenario?

    Read the article

  • How to merge on project / multiple files in VSS?

    - by Vijay
    I have VSS 6.0. I have branched my project so that I can do parallel development. I have 100s of files in folder/subfolders. I have changed some 10-20 files in multiple folders in ver 2 branch. Now I want to merge changes done in ver 2 to ver 1 branch. When I select the project merge branches option is not enabled. neither is it enabled when I select multiple files inside a folder. It's only enabled when one file is selected. Can I not merge on folder / multiple files in VSS 6.0. My thinking was when I do merge on project, VSS would pop up file names whenever there's a conflict (i.e files that are changed)

    Read the article

  • SVN - When you tag a working copy is it still a cheap copy?

    - by mcdon
    Using Subversion, in my working copy I make a minor modification (update a version number). I would then like to tag my working copy. Would this tag still be a cheap copy with the modification, or would SVN duplicate the files? I would hate to see my repository grow enormously in size because I'm trying to save a version number change. The reason I ask about creating a tag that contains a modification rather than committing then tagging involves my build server. The build server creates a CCNetLabel which I use to update the version numbers of my projects (AssemblyInfo.cs). When the build is successful it creates a tag. When I use ForceBuild the tag is based on the working copy which would contain the modified version number. I want the tag to contain the appropriate version number. note: It's debatable if I'm creating a branch or a tag, however SVN does not make a distinction between the two.

    Read the article

  • Versioning code in two separate projects concurently with subverison

    - by Matt1776
    I have a need to create a library of Object Oriented PHP code that will see much reuse and aspires to be highly flexible and modular. Because of its independent nature I would like it to exist as its own SVN project. I would like to be able to create a new web project, save it in SVN as its own separate project, and include within it the library project code as well. During this process, while coding the web application code and making commits, I may need to add a class to the library. I would like to be able to do so and commit those changes back to the libraries project code. In light of all this I could manage the code in two ways Commit the changes to the library back to a branch of its original base project code and make the branch name relevant to the web project I was using it with Commit the changes to the library back to the original code, growing it in size regardless of any specific references that might exist. I have two questions How can I include this library project code into a new project yet not break the subversion functionality, i.e. allowing me to make changes to each project individually? How I can keep the code synchronized? If I choose the first method of managing the library code I may want to grab changes from another branch and pull it in for use in another.

    Read the article

  • Trimming GIT Checkins/Squashing GIT History

    - by yar
    I check my code into a GIT branch every few minutes or so, and the comments end up being things like "Everything broken starting again" and other absurdities. Then every few minutes/hours/days I do a serious checkin with a real comment like, "Fixed bug #22.55, 3rd time." How can I separate these two concepts? I would like to be able to remove all my frequent-checkins and just leave the serious ones.

    Read the article

  • Good overview tool / board for visualizing Subversion branch acitivity?

    - by Sam
    Our team is sometimes finding it a bit confusing and time-consuming to figure out which subversion operations have been perrformed on our different branches in Subversion. Example, when has the Development branch last been merged into the Trunk? When was this particular Tag created, based on what branch etc etc. All of this information can of course be extracted from the Subversion Log, but thats always a manual, time-consuming and error-prone process. Simplest solution seems to be a simple whiteboard with a visualization of all the different branches/tags/trunk in Subversion and people drawing on it, whenever something significant happens. But we're not averse to finding some kind of a digital solution as well, stored centrally. Obviously both systems depend on people actually maintaining the model, but you'll always more or less have that. What do you use as best practice for keeping a clear view on all Subversion operations in the current Sprint (or beyond)?

    Read the article

  • How to resolve merging conflicts in Mercurial (v1.0.2)?

    - by lajos
    I have a merging conflict, using Mercurial 1.0.2: merging test.h warning: conflicts during merge. merging test.h failed! 6 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 1 files unresolved There are unresolved merges, you can redo the full merge using: hg update -C 19 hg merge 18 I can't figure out how to resolve this. Google search results instruct to use: hg resolve but for some reason my Mercurial (v1.0.2) doesn't have a resolve command: hg: unknown command 'resolve' How can I resolve this conflict?

    Read the article

  • How to merge code on svn

    - by London
    I'm using subeclipse plugin for eclipse for SVN. My project looks like this : ProjectName\ - branches - special_ - tags - trunk I have currently checked out project from special_ and I've modified and added one class, how can I merge the code which I updated/added to trunk ? I'll take anything into consideration

    Read the article

  • git: How to move last N commits made to master, into own branch?

    - by amn
    Hi all, I have a repository where I had been working on master branch having last committed some 10 or so commits which I now wish were in another branch, as they describe work that I now consider experimental (i am still learning good git practices). Basically I would like to have these last 10 commits starting from a point in master to form another branch instead, so that I can have my master in a release state (which is what I strive for.) So, this is what I have (rightmost X is the last commit good for release): b--b (feature B) / X--X--X--Z--Z--Z--Z--Z--Z (master) \ a--a--a (feature A) You can see that both X and Z are on master, while I want commits marked by Z (my feature Z work) to lie on their own feature branch, and so that rightmost X is at the tip of master forming a good master branch tip. I guess this is what I want: b--b (feature B) / X--X--X (master) \ \ \ Z--Z--Z--Z--Z--Z (feature Z - the branch I want Z on) a--a--a (feature A) That way I will have my master always ready for release, and merge A, B and Z features when the time comes. Hope I am making sense here...

    Read the article

  • A lot to merge after creating a new branch in SVN

    - by homaxto
    We have recently made a new branch, let us call it rel3.6, which was based on the last release named rel3.5. Work has started on rel3.6, and meanwhile some bugs has been fixed on rel3.5 which now is used for a service pack to be released soon. Today I wanted to merge those bugs from rel3.5 to rel3.6, so I fired up SmartSVN. Standing in the rel3.6 branch i chosed\ to merge with rel3.5 and selected to browse for a revision range. To my surprise there was a huge list of changes even though I checked "Stop on copy" and only showing mergeable revisions. Most of them where dated back before the creation of rel3.6. I did not expect to find anything from before rel3.5 was created. If I make a merge, the only thing I get are changes and conflicts to directory properties. Have I misunderstood something, or is it possible that something was done wrong when creating the branch?

    Read the article

  • git: Switch branch and ignore any changes without committing.

    - by boyfarrell
    Hello, I have got the git branch I'm working on to a nice place. So I make a commit with a useful commit message. I then absentmindedly make minor changes to the code that are not work keeping. I now want to changes branches, but git gives me, error: You have local changes to "X"; cannot switch branches. I thought that I could change branches without committing? If so how can I set this up. If not, how do I get out of this problem? I want to ignore the minor changes without committing and just changes branches! Cheers, Dan

    Read the article

  • Bad idea to force creation of Mercurial remote heads (ie. branches)?

    - by Chad Johnson
    I am developing a centralized web application, and I have a centralized Mercurial repository. Locally I created a branch in my repository hg branch my_branch I then made some changes and committed. Then when I try to push, I get abort: push creates new remote branch 'my_branch'! (did you forget to merge? use push -f to force) I've just been using push -f. Is this bad? I WANT multiple branches in my central, remote repository, as I want to 1) back up my work and 2) allow other developers to develop with me on that branch. Is it bad or something to have branches in my remote repository or something? Should I not be doing push -f (and if not, what should I do?)? Why does Joel say this in his tutorial: Occasionally I've made a change in a branch, pushed, switched to another branch, and changes I had made in that branch I switch to were mysteriously reverted to a previous version from several commits ago. Maybe this is a symptom of forcing a push?

    Read the article

  • Mercurial: Class library that will exist for both .NET 3.5 and 4.0?

    - by Lasse V. Karlsen
    I have a rather big class library written in .NET 3.5 that I'd like to upgrade to make available for .NET 4.0 as well. In that process, I will rip out a lot of old junk, and rewrite some code to better take advantage of the new classes and support in .NET 4.0 (like TPL.) The class libraries will thus diverge, but still be similar enough that some bug-fixes can be done to both in the same manner. How should I best organize this class library in Mercurial? I'm using Kiln (fogbugz) if that matters. I'm thinking: Named branches in one repository, can then transplant any bugfixes from one to the other Unnamed branches in one repository, can also transplant, but I think this will look messy Separate repositories, will have to reimplement the bugfixes (or use a non-mercurial-integraded compare tool to help me) What would you do? (any other alternatives that I haven't though of is welcome as well.) Note that the class libraries will diverge pretty heavily in areas, I have some remnants of old collection-type code that does something similar to Linq that I will remove, and some code that uses it that I will rewrite to use the Linq-methods instead. As such, just copying the project files and using #if NET40..#endif sections is not going to work out. Also, the 3.5 version of the class library will not be getting many new features, mostly just critical bug-fixes, so keeping both versions equally "alive" isn't really necessary. Thus, separate copies of all the files are good enough.

    Read the article

  • How to do simultaneous builds in two Git branches?

    - by james creasy
    I've looked at git-new-workdir, but I don't want the history to be shared because the branches have a release-main relationship. That is, changes in the release branch I want to propagate to the main line, but changes in the main line I don't want in the release line. A common pattern for me is to fix a bug in the release line, integrate it to the main line, then start builds in both branches at the same time. Is there a way to do this with git-new-workdir, do I need to clone, or is there a better solution? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Hot to merge code on svn

    - by London
    I'm using subeclipse plugin for eclipse for SVN. My project looks like this : ProjectName\ - branches - special_ - tags - trunk I have currently checked out project from special_ and I've modified and added one class, how can I merge the code which I updated/added to trunk ? I'll take anything into consideration

    Read the article

  • Usage scenario for svn branches

    - by Paul Knopf
    I have a product that I distribute to my clients. Each client needs some UI customization. I want each client to be able to get updated with new version easily. Can I create a project in svn that serves as a "base project", and then create branches for each client? With that said, will I then be able to commit changes in a branch to the branch, with the option of pushing that change to the core? Can I also perform and "update" command in a branch that will only update changes to the core?

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to stop a window's title bar merging with the panel when maximised?

    - by Richard Turner
    I'm working on a desktop machine with plenty of screen real-estate, so I don't need my windows' title bars to merge with the global menu bar when the windows are maximised. Moreover, I'm working on a dual-screen set-up, so the fact that a window is maximised doesn't mean that it's the only window visible. Before Unity I'd switch to a maximised window by clicking on its title bar, or close the window, even though it isn't focused, by clicking on its close button; I can no longer do this because the title bar is missing and the global menu bar is empty on that screen. This isn't a huge problem - I can click on some of the window's chrome to focus it - but it's unintuitive and it's forcing me to relearn my mousing behaviour. I'd like to turn-off the merging of title and global menu bars, but how? EDIT: I simply want the title bar of the window NOT to merge with the top panel whenever I maximize a Window. The global menu should stay in the top panel as far as I am concerned. Current it maximizes like this I want it to maximize like this (In that screeny the unmaximized Window has been resized to take rest of the space)

    Read the article

  • Branching strategy for parallel development that won't be in the same release?

    - by Telastyn
    My team is working on a product, which for business reasons needs to be released on a regular schedule. An issue has arisen where we want to do development in parallel for the upcoming release, as well as the 'next' release. This is to become standard practice, so it's not as straightforward as cutting a feature branch for the new work. We'll continually have 2+ teams working on different releases of the same product. Is there an SCM best practice for this sort of arrangement?

    Read the article

  • What's the difference between SVN and Git for merging?

    - by Alexander
    As the title suggests, I am curious as to why so many people tout Git as a superior alternative to branching/merging over SVN. I am primarily curious because SVN merging sucks and I would like an alternative solution. How does Git handle merging better? How does it work? For example, in SVN, if I have the following line: Hello World! Then user1 changes it to: Hello World!1 then user2 changes it to: Hello World!12 Then user2 commits, then user1 commits, SVN would give you a conflict. Can Git resolve something simple as this?

    Read the article

  • Where happens merging in SVN - on the client or server?

    - by Malcolm Frexner
    At my company we evaluate working with feature branches. We want to use mergeinfo to track merging. I have issues in some of our tested projects where merging a trunk that has only little changes into branch leads to lots of changed files because of the changed mergeinfo. I read that this behaviour improoved between version 1.5 and 1.6. Does this mean if I update the SVN - server from 1.5.6 to 1.6 I can expext some improvements when merging, or does this depend on the client (which is 1.6.11)?

    Read the article

  • How can I determine the "correct" number of steps in a questionnaire where branching is used?

    - by Mike Kingscott
    I have a potential maths / formula / algorithm question which I would like help on. I've written a questionnaire application in ASP.Net that takes people through a series of pages. I've introduced conditional processing, or branching, so that some pages can be skipped dependent on an answer, e.g. if you're over a certain age, you will skip the page that has Teen Music Choice and go straight to the Golden Oldies page. I wish to display how far along the questionnaire someone is (as a percentage). Let's say I have 10 pages to go through and my first answer takes me straight to page 9. Technically, I'm now 90% of the way through the questionnaire, but the user can think of themselves as being on page 2 of 3: the start page (with the branching question), page 9, then the end page (page 10). How can I show that I'm on 66% and not 90% when I'm on page 9 of 10? For further information, each Page can have a number of questions on that can have one or more conditions on them that will send the user to another page. By default, the next page will be the next one in the collection, but that can be over-ridden (e.g. entire sets of pages can be skipped). Any thoughts? :-s

    Read the article

  • Creating a branch for every Sprint

    - by Martin Hinshelwood
    There are a lot of developers using version control these days, but a feature of version control called branching is very poorly understood and remains unused by most developers in favour of Labels. Most developers think that branching is hard and complicated. Its not! What is hard and complicated is a bad branching strategy. Just like a bad software architecture a bad branch architecture, or one that is not adhered to can prove fatal to a project. We I was at Aggreko we had a fairly successful Feature branching strategy (although the developers hated it) that meant that we could have multiple feature teams working at the same time without impacting each other. Now, this had to be carefully orchestrated as it was a Business Intelligence team and many of the BI artefacts do not lend themselves to merging. Today at SSW I am working on a Scrum team delivering a product that will be used by many hundreds of developers. SSW SQL Deploy takes much of the pain out of upgrading production databases when you are not using the Database projects in Visual Studio. With Scrum each Scrum Team works for a fixed period of time on a single sprint. You can have one or more Scrum Teams involved in delivering a product, but all the work must be merged and tested, ready to be shown to the Product Owner at the the Sprint Review meeting at the end of the current Sprint. So, what does this mean for a branching strategy? We have been using a “Main” (sometimes called “Trunk”) line and doing a branch for each sprint. It’s like Feature Branching, but with only ONE feature in operation at any one time, so no conflicts Figure: DEV folder containing the Development branches.   I know that some folks advocate applying a Label at the start of each Sprint and then rolling back if you need to, but I have always preferred the security of a branch. Like: being able to create a release from Main that has Sprint3 code even while Sprint4 is being worked on. being sure I can always create a stable build on request. Being able to guarantee a version (labels are not auditable) Be able to abandon the sprint without having to delete the code (rare I know, but would be a mess if it happened) Being able to see the flow of change sets through to a safe release It helps you find invalid dependencies when merging to Main as there may be some file that is in everyone’s Sprint branch, but never got checked in. (We had this at the merge of Sprint2) If you are always operating in this way as a standard it makes it easier to then add more scrum teams in the future. Muscle memory of this way of working. Don’t Like: Additional DB space for the branches Baseless merging between sprint branches when changes are directly ported Note: I do not think we will ever attempt this! Maybe a bit tougher to see the history between sprint branches since the changes go up through Main and down to another sprint branch Note: What you would have to do is see which Sprint the changes were made in and then check the history he same file in that Sprint. A little bit of added complexity that you would have to do anyway with multiple teams. Over time, you can end up with a lot of old unused sprint branches. Perhaps destroy with /keephistory can help in this case. Note: We ALWAYS delete the Sprint branch after it has been merged into Main. That is the theory anyway, and as you can see from the images Sprint2 has already been deleted. Why take the chance of having a problem rolling back or wanting to keep some of the code, when you can just abandon a branch and start a new one? It just seems easier and less painful to use a branch to me! What do you think?   Technorati Tags: TFS,TFS2010,Software Development,ALM,Branching

    Read the article

  • Merging similar graphs based solely on the graph structure?

    - by Buttons840
    I am looking for (or attempting to design) a technique for matching nodes from very similar graphs based on the structure of the graph*. In the examples below, the top graph has 5 nodes, and the bottom graph has 6 nodes. I would like to match the nodes from the top graph to the nodes in the bottom graph, such that the "0" nodes match, and the "1" nodes match, etc. This seems logically possible, because I can do it in my head for these simple examples. Now I just need to express my intuition in code. Are there any established algorithms or patterns I might consider? (* When I say based on the structure of the graph, I mean the solution shouldn't depend on the node labels; the numeric labels on the nodes are only for demonstration.) I'm also interested in the performance of any potential solutions. How well will they scale? Could I merge graphs with millions of nodes? In more complex cases, I recognize that the best solution may be subject to interpretation. Still, I'm hoping for a "good" way to merge complex graphs. (These are directed graphs; the thicker portion of an edge represents the head.)

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >