Search Results

Search found 2291 results on 92 pages for 'justin branch'.

Page 13/92 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • What Happens to Commit Logs on a Branch After Merging?

    - by Levi Hackwith
    Scenario: Programmer creates a branch for project 'foo' called 'my_foo' at revision 5 Programmer makes multiple changes to multiple files as he works on the 'my_foo' feature. At the end of each major step, say adding several new functions to class, the programmer does an svn commit on the appropriate files therefore committing them to the branch After several weeks and many commits later (each commit having a commit log describing what he did), the programmer merges the branch back into the trunk: #Assume the following is being done from inside a working copy of the trunk: svn merge -r 5:15 file:///path/to/repo/branches/my_foo Hazzah! he's merged all his changes back into trunk! There's much rejoicing and drinking of Mountain Dew. Now let's say another programmer comes along a week later and updates their working copy from revision 5 to revision 15. "Wow", they say. "I wonder what's changed since revision 5". The programmer then does an svn status on their working copy and they get something like this: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r15 | programmer1 | 2010-03-20 21:27:04 -0400 (Sat, 20 Mar 2010) | 1 line Merging Version 2.0 Changes into trunk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r5 | programmer2 | 2010-02-15 10:59:55 -0500 (Mon, 15 Feb 2010) | 1 line Added assets/images/tumblr_icon.png to trunk What the heck happened to all the notes that the other programmer put in with all of his commits in his branch? Do those not get pulled over during a merge? Am I crazy or just forgetting something?

    Read the article

  • Has subversion lost some of my revisions in a branch?

    - by BombDefused
    I've been working on my project using a subversion branch. I've used the branching feature few times before without issue, until today. I've come to merge back into the trunk, and noticed that not everything from my branch was there. I go back to my project folder which I've been committing to the branch and look at the log messages using TortoiseSVN (the command line basic log command shows the same). See the attached image. The revision numbers go up incrementally, until revision 303 (the last trunk revision was 299). Then there are numbers missing. The latest commit, about half an hour ago was 316, but it doesn't show up in the log for the branch. Trying to commit the files again doesn't do anything. I am the only person committing to this repository at present. The missing revisions do not show up in the log for the trunk project. What's going on here. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong? Update - the revisions do show in the repo browser (Thanks Antonio Perez), but I don't understand why they are not being included with the merge?

    Read the article

  • Git checkout doesn't change anything, and it's getting very frustrating

    - by Josh
    I really like git. At least, I like the idea of git. Being able to checkout my master project as a separate branch where I can change whatever I want without risk of screwing everything else up is awesome. But it's not working. Every time I checkout a branch to another branch, make changes to the one branch, and then checkout the original branch, I still have all the files and changes that happened in the other branch. This is getting extremely frustrating. I've read that this can happen when you have files open in the IDE while doing this, but I've been pretty careful about that and both closed the files in the IDE, closed the IDE, and shut down my rails server before switching branches, and this still happens. Also, running 'git clean -f' either deletes everything that happened after some arbitrary commit (and randomly, at that), or, as in the latest case, didn't change anything back to its original state. I thought I was using git correctly, but at this point, I'm at my wit's end here. I'm trying to work with a bunch of experimental code using a stable version of my project, but I keep having to manually track down and fix all the changes I made. Any ideas or suggestions? git checkout -b photo_tagging git branch # to make sure it's right # make a bunch of changes, creations, etc git status # see what's changed since before git add . # approve of the changes, I guess, since if I do git commit after this, it says no changes git commit -m 'these are changes I made' git checkout master git branch #=> *master # look at files, tags_controller is still there, added in photo_tagging # and code added in photo_tagging branch are still there in *master This seems to happen whether I do a commit or not on the branch.

    Read the article

  • git: how to not delete files when rebasing commits with file deletion

    - by Benjol
    I have a branch that I would like to rebase onto the lastest commit on my master. The problem is that one of the intervening commits on master was to delete and ignore a particular set of files (see this question). If I just do a straight rebase, those files will get deleted again. Is there anyway of doing this, inside git, rather than copying all the files out by hand, then copying them back in again afterwards? Or should I do something like create a new branch off master, then merge in just the commits from the old branch? Attempts ascii art: master branch | w work in progress on branch C | committed further changes on master | | B / committed delete/ignore files on master | 2 committed changes on branch | / A / committed changes on master which I now need to get branch working | 1 committed changes on branch 0___/ created branch (Doing the art, I realise that I could just rebase branch from A, then merge when I've finished, but I'd still like to know if there's a way to do this 'properly') UPDATE Warning to anyone trying this. The solution proposed here is fine, but when you checkout master again, the B commit will be re-applied, and you lose all your files again :(

    Read the article

  • Model of hql query firing at back end by hql engine?

    - by Maddy.Shik
    I want to understand how hibernate execute hql query internally or in other models how hql query engine works. Please suggest some good links for same? One of reason for reading is following problem. Class Branch { //lazy loaded @joincolumn(name="company_id") Company company; } Since company is heavy object so it is lazy loaded. now i have hql query "from Branch as branch where branch.Company.id=:companyId" my concern is that if for firing above query, hql engine has to retrieve company object then its a performance hit and i would prefer to add one more property in Branch class i.e. companyId. So in this case hql query would be "from Branch as branch where branch.companyId=:companyId" If hql engine first generate sql from hql followed by firing of sql query itself, then there should be no performance issue. Please let me know if problem is not understandable.

    Read the article

  • We're Subversion Geeks and we want to know the benefits of Mercurial

    - by Matt
    Having read I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS. I have a related follow up question. I read that question and read the recommended links and videos and I see the benefits but I don't see the overall mindshift people are talking about. Our team is of 8-10 developers that work on one large code base consisting of 60 projects. We use Subversion and have a main trunk. When a developer starts a new Fogbugz case they create a svn branch, do the work on the branch and when they're done they merge back to the trunk. Occasionally they may stay on the branch for an extended time and merge the trunk to the branch to pick up the changes. When I watched Linus talk about people creating a branch and never doing it again, that's not us at all. We create probably 50-100 branches a week without issue. The biggest challenge is the merging but we've gotten pretty good at that as well. I tend to merge by fogbugz case & checkin rather than the entire root of the branch. We never work remotely and we never make branches off of branches. If you're the only one working in that section of the code base then the merge to the trunk goes smoothly. If someone else had modified the same section of code then the merge can get messy and you might need to do some surgery. Conflicts are conflicts, I don't see how any system could get it right most of the time unless if was smart enough to understand the code. After creating a branch the following checkout of 60k+ files takes some time but that would be an issue with any source control system we'd use. Is there some benefit of any DVCS that we're not seeing that would be of great help to us?

    Read the article

  • How to properly update a feature branch from trunk?

    - by Pavel Radzivilovsky
    SVN book says: ...Another way of thinking about this pattern is that your weekly sync of trunk to branch is analogous to running svn update in a working copy, while the final merge step is analogous to running svn commit from a working copy I find this approach very unpractical in large developments, for several reasons, mostly related to reintegration step. From SVN v1.5, merging is done rev-by-rev. Cherry-picking the areas to be merged would cause us to resolve the trunk-branch conflicts twice (one when merging trunk revisions to the FB, and once more when merging back). Repository size: trunk changes might be significant for a large code base, and copying the differences files (unlike SVN copy) from trunk elsewhere may be a significant overhead. Instead, we do what we call "re-branching". In this case, when a significant chunk of trunk changes is needed, a new feature branch is opened from current trunk, and the merge is always downward (Feature branches - trunk - stable branches). This does not go along SVN book guidelines and developers see it as extra pain. How do you handle this situation?

    Read the article

  • Single file in a working copy (branch) pointing to trunk under TortoiseSVN?

    - by Camsoft
    Got a very strange problem. I've got a working copy which is from a branch. When I commit any changes from this working copy, one single file in the working copy gets committed to the trunk. If I right-click this single file and click Commit the SVN URL displayed points to the /trunk and not the branch. How on earth could this happen? I used TortoiseSVN to create the branch in the first place. How can I fix this?

    Read the article

  • Having a fork match the original repo when the original master branch can't be merged in?

    - by a2h
    The related questions that SO offer me only answer simple cases that can be solved with a pull - however, that won't work for my case. There's a repository I've forked, with just a master branch, and I've forked it, and I've worked in both my master, and a new branch of my own, rw-style. The owner of the forked repository's committed some of my changes but not others; the black dots on the top right below represent commits from both my master and rw-style branches. I'm aware using the fork queue is not a good idea, so I'm staying away from it. Using git pull does work, but it creates a conflict that I would then need to resolve, and it also results in duplicate history for my master branch, and that doesn't look particularly pretty. I don't know any other solutions right now, so I'm currently considering just creating a patch from two commits that I haven't yet pushed, deleting my fork, creating it again from the original, and then applying my patches on top of it. Is that the only solution?

    Read the article

  • How to checkout a case sensitive SVN source code branch to a case insensitive system?

    - by gagneet
    I am working on a Macbook system , which is formatted as a case insensitive system. The issue is that, I need to check out a SVN branch which has some case sensitive files in it. Example: inbuilt-file.c InBuilt-File.c How do I checkout this branch when both the files are in the same folder? When I try and checkout, it gives me an error stating that an unversioned file of the name already exists.

    Read the article

  • Parallel Dev: Should developers work within the same branch?

    - by Zombies
    Should multiple developers work within the same branch, and update - modify - commit ? Or should each developer have his/her own each branch exclusively? And how would sharing branches impact an environment where you are doing routine maintenance as opposed to unmaintained code streams? Also, how would this work if you deploy each developers work as soon as it is done and passes testing (rapidly, as opposed to putting all of their work into a single release).

    Read the article

  • How do I copy a version of a single file from one git branch to another?

    - by madlep
    I've got two branches that are fully merged together. However, after the merge is done, I realise that one file has been messed up by the merge (someone else did an auto-format, gah), and it would just be easier to change to the new version in the other branch, and then re-insert my one line change after bringing it over into my branch. So what's the easiest way in git to do this?

    Read the article

  • Why do clients on Branch Sites insist on accessing SYSVOL on the HQ DC instead of the branches' RODC?

    - by pepoluan
    I'm still scratching my head over this situation... You see, we have 3 RW DCs in the HQ, and 1 RODC on every branch sites (50+ locations). During startup, a script will pull in some files from \\example.com\SYSVOL\example.com\Common\Data But we have been experiencing bandwidth overload. A traffic analysis indicated that lots of clients in the Branch Sites were trying to access the SYSVOL located in the RW DCs. E.g.: If the RW DCs are 10.1.0.15, 10.2.0.15, and 10.3.0.15, and site 'X' has a subnet of 10.27.0.0/16 (with its RODC at 10.27.0.15), clients at site 'X' seem to insist on accessing \\10.1.0.15\SYSVOL or \\10.2.0.15\SYSVOL or \\10.3.0.15\SYSVOL; they seem to be ignoring the RODC completely. What is going on here? Where should I start investigating what went wrong? BTW, I'm already using DFS-R, and replication have been going on successfully; I can put a small 'canary' file on one of the RW DCs, and within minutes all the RODCs will have successfully replicated the 'canary' file.

    Read the article

  • How to prevent git merge to merge a specific file from trunk into a branch and vice versa

    - by svenn
    Hi, I am using git while developing VHDL code. I am doing development on a component in a git branch: comp_dev. The component interface does not change, just the code inside the component. Now, this component already exists in the master branch, but in a more stable version, enough for other developers to be able to use the component. The other developers also have branches for their work, and when their code is good they merge their branches back to master. At this stage I need to be able to merge all the changes from master back to my comp_dev branch, which is basically no problem, but sometimes the stable version of the component I am working on do change as a part of other designers work, but not the interface. I have to do manual git merge -s ours on that particular file every time I want to merge, otherwise I get a conflict that I need to solve manually, throwing out their work. The same happens if I want to merge changes in other files back to master. If I forget to do git merge -s ours src/rx/state_machine.vhd comp_dev before I do a git merge, then I end up with either a manual merge, or I accidentally merge an unstable version of the state machine on top of the stable one. Is there a way to temporarily exclude one file from merges?

    Read the article

  • How to change the default branch to push in mercurial?

    - by timmfin
    I like creating named branches in Mercurial to deal with features that might take a while to code, so when I push I do a hg push -r default to insure I'm only pushing changes to the default branch. However, it is a pain to have to remember -r default every since time I do do a push or outgoing command. So I tried fix this by adding this config to my ~/.hgrc: [defaults] push = push -r default outgoing = outgoing -r default The problem is, those config lines are not really defaults, they are aliases. They work as intended until I try to do a hg push -r <some revision>. And the "default" I've setup just obliterates the revision I passed in. (I see that defaults are deprecated, but aliases have the same problem). I tried looking around, but I can't find anything that will allow me to set a default branch to push AND allow me to override it when necessary. Anyone know of something else I could do? ps: I do realize that I could have separate clones for each branch, but I would rather not do that. It's annoying to have to switch directories, particularly when you have shared configuration or editor workspaces.

    Read the article

  • What am I doing wrong with SVN merging?

    - by randomusername
    When SVN with merge tracking works, it's really nice, I love it. But it keeps getting twisted up. We are using TortoiseSVN. We continuously get the following message: Error: Reintegrate can only be used if revisions 1234 through 2345 were previously merged from /Trunk to the reintegrate source, but this is not the case For reference, this is the method we are using: Create a Branch Develop in the branch Occasionally Merge a range of revisions from the Trunk to the Branch When branch is stable, Reintegrate a branch from the branch to the trunk Delete the branch I Merge a range of revisions from the trunk to the branch (leaving the range blank, so it should be all revisions) just prior to the reintegrate operation, so the branch should be properly synced with the trunk. Right now, the Trunk has multiple SVN merge tracking properties associated with it. Should it? Or should a Reintegrate not add any merge tracking info? Is there something wrong with our process? This is making SVN unusable - 1 out of every 3 reintegrates forces me to dive in and hack at the merge tracking info.

    Read the article

  • Git branching and tagging best practices

    - by Code-Guru
    I am currently learning to use Git by reading Pro Git. Right now I'm learning about branching and tags. My question is when should I use a branch and when should I use a tag? For example, say I create a branch for version 1.1 of a project. When I finish and release this version, should I leave the branch to mark the release version? Or should I add a tag? If I add a tag, should I delete the version branch (assuming that it is merged into master or some other branch)?

    Read the article

  • Why is Git telling me "Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 11 commits." and how do I get it t

    - by spilth
    I'm a Git newbie. I recently moved a Rails project from Subversion to Git. I followed the tutorial here: http://www.simplisticcomplexity.com/2008/03/05/cleanly-migrate-your-subversion-repository-to-a-git-repository/ I am also using unfuddle.com to store my code. I make changes on my Mac laptop on the train to/from work and then push them to unfuddle when I have a network connection using the following command: git push unfuddle master I use Capistrano for deployments and pull code from the unfuddle repository using the master branch. Lately I've noticed the following message when I run "git status" on my laptop: # On branch master # Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 11 commits. # nothing to commit (working directory clean) And I'm confused as to why. I thought my laptop was the origin... but don't know if either the fact that I originally pulled from Subversion or push to Unfuddle is what's causing the message to show up. How can I: Find out where Git thinks 'origin/master' is? If it's somewhere else, how do I turn my laptop into the 'origin/master'? Get this message to go away. It makes me think Git is unhappy about something. My mac is running Git version 1.6.0.1. When I run git remote show origin as suggested by dbr, I get the following: ~/Projects/GeekFor/geekfor 10:47 AM $ git remote show origin fatal: '/Users/brian/Projects/GeekFor/gf/.git': unable to chdir or not a git archive fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly When I run git remote -v as suggested by Aristotle Pagaltzis, I get the following: ~/Projects/GeekFor/geekfor 10:33 AM $ git remote -v origin /Users/brian/Projects/GeekFor/gf/.git unfuddle [email protected]:spilth/geekfor.git Now, interestingly, I'm working on my project in the geekfor directory but it says my origin is my local machine in the gf directory. I believe gf was the temporary directory I used when converting my project from Subversion to Git and probably where I pushed to unfuddle from. Then I believe I checked out a fresh copy from unfuddle to the geekfor directory. So it looks like I should follow dbr's advice and do: git remote rm origin git remote add origin [email protected]:spilth/geekfor.git

    Read the article

  • SVN: is it possible to delete a branch that was copied removed etc for good?

    - by dimus
    I have to remove a branch from svn history for good. Normally I would use svnadmin dump /path/to/repo |svndumpfilter --drop-empty-revs --renumber-revs exclude /branches/bad_branch However this branch was not just created, but also moved and then removed and dump script fails to process downstream information with messages like: Invalid copy source path '/branches/bad_branch' So I imagine 2 ways to cope with the problem keep only last few revisions of the history and put current repository as an archive on the web make a dump up to the revision where the 'bad_branch' was created and apply the rest of the changes as a patch, therefore losing history of a few recent commits. Is there a better, cleaner way to deal with this?

    Read the article

  • How to configure git repository so a branch other than master is checked out after a cloning?

    - by Suraj Barkale
    I am trying to set up a git server with bunch of repositories. I am planning to use the branching model described in http://nvie.com/git-model article. So I will have at least two branches (named master and develop) in the repository. After a clone the master branch is checked out by git. Is there a git config option so that develop branch will be checked out instead? In effect I want git clone my_repo_url to behave as git clone -b develop my_repo_url.

    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

  • Unable to access internal network through PfSense WAN port

    - by Sean
    Our branch office is unable to connect to our internal network for some reason. However we can connect to the branch office domain controller from behind PfSense. The following is our setup: |Branch DC - 192.168.0.101 | |Branch Firewall - 192.168.0.2 | |(Internet) | |Local Firewall - 192.168.3.1 | |PFSense WAN port - 192.168.3.100 |PFSense LAN port - 192.168.1.1 | | DC1 - 192.168.1.2|DC2 - 192.168.1.4 Branch DC can ping and connect to PFSense WebGUI on the WAN port successfully (we set this up using the PfSense documentation). DC1 and DC2 can connect outbound to the Branch DC. There seems to be a rule that prevents internal access on the WAN port. However our rules are set to allow all traffic on the LAN and WAN ports. It would be ideal to just disable the firewall altogether since we already have a firewall but when we do this, PfSense doesn't allow any internal traffic at all. I look forward to any assistance and thank you ahead of time.

    Read the article

  • Downloading source via bazaar

    - by beanaroo
    Forgive me if this is a stupid question or an inapproptiate place to ask. This is my first time attempting to download source by means of bazaar (launchpad). Regardless of the package or branch... I always get an error like the following: bzr: ERROR: Revision {[email protected]} not present in "Graph(StackedParentsProvider(bzrlib.repository._LazyListJoin(([CachingParentsProvider(None)], []))))". I have looked all over and cannot find an answer. What does this mean? How can I resolve it? Many thanks. ---edit--- Ubuntu 12.10 running BZR-2.6.0Commands include but are not limited to: bzr branch lp:ubuntu/quantal-proposed/ubiquity bzr branch lp:ubuntu/quantal/ubiquity bzr branch lp:ubuntu/quantal/ubiquity-slideshow-ubuntu bzr branch lp:nano (just to test) bzr branch lp:ubuntu/quantal/transmission (just to test)

    Read the article

  • Clarify git stash for me in switching branches

    - by EmmyS
    I've been working on branch A. My work there is not finished, but I need to switch to branch B for a while. It looks like stash is the command to use. I've found a number of references showing how to use stash to save your changes, but I'm a bit confused. All of the references say something like, when you're ready to go back, just do git stash pop. They don't, however, tell me if I need to switch back to branch A before doing that, though. So, do I manually go back to branch A before running stash pop, or do I stay in branch B, and the actual act of running stash pop will send me back to branch A where I left off with it?

    Read the article

  • Integrating different branches from external sources into a single Mercurial repository

    - by dukeofgaming
    I'm currently working in a company using Perforce and am making way for distributed version control with Mercurial. I've had success importing Perforce history using the perfarce (quite a suitable name, I laugh every time I see/say it) however, this only works with a single branch at a time. Here's how my P4 integration setup works: In perforce, create a "client", which is kind of a description of what you will be constantly updating/checking-out. This can only address one branch at a time (trunk or other). Once you do this, run hg clone p4://<server>/<client_name> Go to .hg/hgrc and put the perforce path line: perforce = p4://<server>/<client_name> Work normally with the code under mercurial, do hg pull perforce to sync up, hg push to export a changelist What I'd like to be able to do is have a perforce path per branch and have everything work in the same repository. Now, pushing is not a problem, however, if I pull the history from another branch it would end up at the default branch. I'd like to be able to do something like hg pull perforce-R5 and have it land in mercurial's R5 branch. Even if I have no merging history, it would be sweet enough to be able to preserve it. There are also other plugins for CVCSs that let you integrate mercurial, but AFAIK the subversion one has the same problem. I don't think there is a straight-through way of doing this, but as long as I could automate the process with some hooks and scripts in a single Mercurial machine, that would be good enough.

    Read the article

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