Search Results

Search found 110535 results on 4422 pages for 'source code management'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 14/4422 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • Formatting data from management database

    - by bVector
    I've got some data that goes like this: Config_Name Question Answer Cisco WAN Sensitivity: High Cisco WAN Authorized Users: Brent, Charles Cisco WAN Last Audited: n/a Cisco WAN Next Audit: 3/30/2012 Cisco WAN Audit Signature: Cisco WAN Username: MYCOMPANY Cisco WAN Password: Cisco WAN Encrypted-A ENCRYPTED DATA Cisco WAN Encrypted-B Cisco WAN Encrypted-C vCenter server Sensitivity: High vCenter server Authorized Users: Brent, Charles vCenter server Last Audited: vCenter server Next Audit: 3/30/2012 vCenter server Audit Signature: ENCRYPTED DATA vCenter server Username: administrator vCenter server Password: vCenter server Encrypted-A ENCRYPTED DATA vCenter server Encrypted-B vCenter server Encrypted-C AKSC-NE01 IPMI Sensitivity: High AKSC-NE01 IPMI Authorized Users: Brent, Charles AKSC-NE01 IPMI Last Audited: AKSC-NE01 IPMI Next Audit: 3/30/2012 AKSC-NE01 IPMI Audit Signature: ENCRYPTED DATA AKSC-NE01 IPMI Username: MYCOMPANY AKSC-NE01 IPMI Password: AKSC-NE01 IPMI Encrypted-A ENCRYPTED DATA AKSC-NE01 IPMI Encrypted-B AKSC-NE01 IPMI Encrypted-C and I need it to be in this format: Config_Name Sensitivity: Authorized Users: Last Audited: Next Audit: Audit Signature: Username: Password: Encrypted-A Encrypted-B Encrypted-C AKSC-NE01 IPMI High Brent, Charles 3/30/2012 ENCRYPTED DATA MYCOMPANY ENCRYPTED DATA Cisco ASA5505 WAN High Brent, Charles n/a 3/30/2012 ENCRYPTED DATA MYCOMPANY ENCRYPTED DATA vCenter server High Brent, Charles 3/30/2012 ENCRYPTED DATA administrator ENCRYPTED DATA the tabs get messed up on here but hopefully you get my drift. does anyone know an easy way to do this? I haven't found one with excel just yet.

    Read the article

  • configure: error: Could not find libavformat - part of ffmpeg after installing libav from source

    - by Patryk
    I tried to install minidlna on my machine but it appeared to me that it's not in repositories anymore. Well then I decided to compile it myself. After downloading version 1.1.3 I tried to compile but I needed libav headers which I couldn't install via apt - no idea why there has been a lot of broken packages: $ sudo apt-get install libavcodec-dev Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree Reading state information... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: libavcodec-dev : Depends: libavutil-dev (= 6:9.13-0ubuntu0.14.04.1) but it is not going to be installed E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. Anyways I installed libav 9.13 from source and now I came to this point: $ ./configure ... checking for av_open_input_file in -lavformat... no checking for avformat_open_input in -lavformat... no checking for av_open_input_file in -lavformat... no checking for avformat_open_input in -lavformat... no configure: error: Could not find libavformat - part of ffmpeg but I have installed that! Even in the install log I can see : ... INSTALL libavdevice/libavdevice.a INSTALL libavfilter/libavfilter.a INSTALL libavformat/libavformat.a INSTALL libavresample/libavresample.a INSTALL libavcodec/libavcodec.a INSTALL libswscale/libswscale.a INSTALL libavutil/libavutil.a INSTALL libavdevice/avdevice.h INSTALL libavdevice/version.h INSTALL libavdevice/libavdevice.pc INSTALL libavfilter/avfilter.h INSTALL libavfilter/avfiltergraph.h INSTALL libavfilter/buffersink.h INSTALL libavfilter/buffersrc.h INSTALL libavfilter/version.h INSTALL libavfilter/libavfilter.pc INSTALL libavformat/avformat.h ....

    Read the article

  • Is commented out code really always bad?

    - by nikie
    Practically every text on code quality I've read agrees that commented out code is a bad thing. The usual example is that someone changed a line of code and left the old line there as a comment, apparently to confuse people who read the code later on. Of course, that's a bad thing. But I often find myself leaving commented out code in another situation: I write a computational-geometry or image processing algorithm. To understand this kind of code, and to find potential bugs in it, it's often very helpful to display intermediate results (e.g. draw a set of points to the screen or save a bitmap file). Looking at these values in the debugger usually means looking at a wall of numbers (coordinates, raw pixel values). Not very helpful. Writing a debugger visualizer every time would be overkill. I don't want to leave the visualization code in the final product (it hurts performance, and usually just confuses the end user), but I don't want to loose it, either. In C++, I can use #ifdef to conditionally compile that code, but I don't see much differnce between this: /* // Debug Visualization: draw set of found interest points for (int i=0; i<count; i++) DrawBox(pts[i].X, pts[i].Y, 5,5); */ and this: #ifdef DEBUG_VISUALIZATION_DRAW_INTEREST_POINTS for (int i=0; i<count; i++) DrawBox(pts[i].X, pts[i].Y, 5,5); #endif So, most of the time, I just leave the visualization code commented out, with a comment saying what is being visualized. When I read the code a year later, I'm usually happy I can just uncomment the visualization code and literally "see what's going on". Should I feel bad about that? Why? Is there a superior solution? Update: S. Lott asks in a comment Are you somehow "over-generalizing" all commented code to include debugging as well as senseless, obsolete code? Why are you making that overly-generalized conclusion? I recently read Robert Glass' "Clean Code", which says: Few practices are as odious as commenting-out code. Don't do this!. I've looked at the paragraph in the book again (p. 68), there's no qualification, no distinction made between different reasons for commenting out code. So I wondered if this rule is over-generalizing (or if I misunderstood the book) or if what I do is bad practice, for some reason I didn't know.

    Read the article

  • Open source clone for Starcraft

    - by sinekonata
    Two questions about a SC:Broodwar clone. Is there one yet? How likely is legal pursuit? Since almost all games I usually play now have an FOS alternative from alpha to way polished, I was wondering why can't I find one for SC, one of the biggest titans of the gaming community? So my first question is, is there a game that was made with the intention to emulate SC? Is it that I didn't look well enough? Could it really be that no one tackled what seems like a small effort compared to the creation of a game engine like Spring or games like Rigs of Rod or Minetest? And since SC is not being maintained at all shouldn't the incentive to see a bug free modable balanced version huge? What am I not getting here? In the event that there is none, is it a legal problem? Could it be that people expect Blizzard to release sources themselves? Or that developers don't see the point in having SC mechanics without the patented lore and aesthetics? And the trickier question, if I were to make SC an open source game, a total clone of it for the purposes of maintenance, modability, etc. Would Blizzard really sue a team of developer fans that just do them a favour knowing they don't lose any money from Korea broadcasts? Or would they do it not to set precedents. So thanks for reading all that, hope I'm not the only one to think it's weird that no one talks about it. See you.

    Read the article

  • If your unit test code "smells" does it really matter?

    - by Buttons840
    Usually I just throw my unit tests together using copy and paste and all kind of other bad practices. The unit tests usually end up looking quite ugly, they're full of "code smell," but does this really matter? I always tell myself as long as the "real" code is "good" that's all that matters. Plus, unit testing usually requires various "smelly hacks" like stubbing functions. How concerned should I be over poorly designed ("smelly") unit tests?

    Read the article

  • UPMC Picks Oracle Identity Management

    - by Naresh Persaud
    UPMC, a $10-billion integrated global health enterprise, has selected Oracle as a key technology partner in UPMC’s $100-million analytics initiative designed to help “unlock the secrets of human health and disease” by consolidating and analyzing data from 200 separate sources across UPMC’s far-flung network.As part of the project UPMC also selected Oracle Identity Management to secure the interaction and insure regulatory compliance. Read complete article here. As healthcare organizations create new services on-line to provide better care Identity Management can provide a foundation for collaboration.

    Read the article

  • Latest Fusion DOO White Paper - Overcoming Order Management Complexity in Global Organizations

    - by Pam Petropoulos
    Check out this latest Fusion Distributed Order Orchestration white paper entitled “Overcoming Order Management Complexity in Global Organizations”.  Discover how Oracle Fusion DOO enables large, complex organizations to streamline their order management processes and take advantage of lower costs, higher margins, and improved customer service. Click here to read the whitepaper.

    Read the article

  • What are the strategies to become a good open source developer?

    - by u3050
    I always hear that involving with open source projects is good for career and the more (good) open source you release, the closer you will be to getting your dream job before you've even had an interview.I am expert in Java and I am trying to become fluent in Scala. I always think about getting involved in open source development in Java/Scala but the following confusions stopping me to do so. How/where do I start in open source development projects in GitHub etc? Or How to find active/busy open source development projects? How to find an area where improvement is required or enhancement required in such projects? It looks too complex in the first analysis or its pretty hard to find such opportunities. What are the common strategies to follow if I want to become hobbyist/free time open source developer?People who have experience in open source development please share your learnings/expertise from scratch.Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to read Scala code with lots of implicits?

    - by Petr Pudlák
    Consider the following code fragment (adapted from http://stackoverflow.com/a/12265946/1333025): // Using scalaz 6 import scalaz._, Scalaz._ object Example extends App { case class Container(i: Int) def compute(s: String): State[Container, Int] = state { case Container(i) => (Container(i + 1), s.toInt + i) } val d = List("1", "2", "3") type ContainerState[X] = State[Container, X] println( d.traverse[ContainerState, Int](compute) ! Container(0) ) } I understand what it does on high level. But I wanted to trace what exactly happens during the call to d.traverse at the end. Clearly, List doesn't have traverse, so it must be implicitly converted to another type that does. Even though I spent a considerable amount of time trying to find out, I wasn't very successful. First I found that there is a method in scalaz.Traversable traverse[F[_], A, B] (f: (A) => F[B], t: T[A])(implicit arg0: Applicative[F]): F[T[B]] but clearly this is not it (although it's most likely that "my" traverse is implemented using this one). After a lot of searching, I grepped scalaz source codes and I found scalaz.MA's method traverse[F[_], B] (f: (A) => F[B])(implicit a: Applicative[F], t: Traverse[M]): F[M[B]] which seems to be very close. Still I'm missing to what List is converted in my example and if it uses MA.traverse or something else. The question is: What procedure should I follow to find out what exactly is called at d.traverse? Having even such a simple code that is so hard analyze seems to me like a big problem. Am I missing something very simple? How should I proceed when I want to understand such code that uses a lot of imported implicits? Is there some way to ask the compiler what implicits it used? Or is there something like Hoogle for Scala so that I can search for a method just by its name?

    Read the article

  • Pointless Code In Your Source

    - by Ali
    I've heard stories of this from senior coders and I've seen some of it myself. It seems that there are more than a few instances of programmers writing pointless code. I will see things like: Method or function calls that do nothing of value. Redundant checks done in a separate class file, object or method. if statements that always evaluate to true. Threads that spin off and do nothing of note. Just to name a few. I've been told that this is because programmers want to intentionally make the code confusing to raise their own worth to the organization or make sure of repeat business in the case of contractual or outsourced work. My question is. Has anyone else seen code like this? What was your conclusion was to why that code was there? If anyone has written code like this, can you share why?

    Read the article

  • Is there a good Open Source alternative to the commercial software "Quicken"?

    - by Alex R
    I just need good solid double-entry / multi-account transactions with a variety of simple reports. I've previously used Quicken but their file and OS version compatibility issues are a nightmare. I need a software that will have a good chance of still opening the files I create today, several years from now. Quicken has failed me in this regard. So I figure anything that comes with source code is a safer bet.

    Read the article

  • VS 2012 Code Review &ndash; Before Check In OR After Check In?

    - by Tarun Arora
    “Is Code Review Important and Effective?” There is a consensus across the industry that code review is an effective and practical way to collar code inconsistency and possible defects early in the software development life cycle. Among others some of the advantages of code reviews are, Bugs are found faster Forces developers to write readable code (code that can be read without explanation or introduction!) Optimization methods/tricks/productive programs spread faster Programmers as specialists "evolve" faster It's fun “Code review is systematic examination (often known as peer review) of computer source code. It is intended to find and fix mistakes overlooked in the initial development phase, improving both the overall quality of software and the developers' skills. Reviews are done in various forms such as pair programming, informal walkthroughs, and formal inspections.” Wikipedia No where does the definition mention whether its better to review code before the code has been committed to version control or after the commit has been performed. No matter which side you favour, Visual Studio 2012 allows you to request for a code review both before check in and also request for a review after check in. Let’s weigh the pros and cons of the approaches independently. Code Review Before Check In or Code Review After Check In? Approach 1 – Code Review before Check in Developer completes the code and feels the code quality is appropriate for check in to TFS. The developer raises a code review request to have a second pair of eyes validate if the code abides to the recommended best practices, will not result in any defects due to common coding mistakes and whether any optimizations can be made to improve the code quality.                                             Image 1 – code review before check in Pros Everything that gets committed to source control is reviewed. Minimizes the chances of smelly code making its way into the code base. Decreases the cost of fixing bugs, remember, the earlier you find them, the lesser the pain in fixing them. Cons Development Code Freeze – Since the changes aren’t in the source control yet. Further development can only be done off-line. The changes have not been through a CI build, hard to say whether the code abides to all build quality standards. Inconsistent! Cumbersome to track the actual code review process.  Not every change to the code base is worth reviewing, a lot of effort is invested for very little gain. Approach 2 – Code Review after Check in Developer checks in, random code reviews are performed on the checked in code.                                                      Image 2 – Code review after check in Pros The code has already passed the CI build and run through any code analysis plug ins you may have running on the build server. Instruct the developer to ensure ZERO fx cop, style cop and static code analysis before check in. Code is cleaner and smell free even before the code review. No Offline development, developers can continue to develop against the source control. Cons Bad code can easily make its way into the code base. Since the review take place much later in the cycle, the cost of fixing issues can prove to be much higher. Approach 3 – Hybrid Approach The community advocates a more hybrid approach, a blend of tooling and human accountability quotient.                                                               Image 3 – Hybrid Approach 1. Code review high impact check ins. It is not possible to review everything, by setting up code review check in policies you can end up slowing your team. More over, the code that you are reviewing before check in hasn't even been through a green CI build either. 2. Tooling. Let the tooling work for you. By running static analysis, fx cop, style cop and other plug ins on the build agent, you can identify the real issues that in my opinion can't possibly be identified using human reviews. Configure the tooling to report back top 10 issues every day. Mandate the manual code review of individuals who keep making it to this list of shame more often. 3. During Merge. I would prefer eliminating some of the other code issues during merge from Main branch to the release branch. In a scrum project this is still easier because cheery picking the merges is a possibility and the size of code being reviewed is still limited. Let the tooling work for you, if some one breaks the CI build often, put them on a gated check in build course until you see improvement. If some one appears on the top 10 list of shame generated via the build then ensure that all their code is reviewed till you see improvement. At the end of the day, the goal is to ensure that the code being delivered is top quality. By enforcing a code review before any check in, you force the developer to work offline or stay put till the review is complete. What do the experts say? So I asked a few expects what they thought of “Code Review quality gate before Checking in code?" Terje Sandstrom | Microsoft ALM MVP You mean a review quality gate BEFORE checking in code????? That would mean a lot of code staying either local or in shelvesets, and not even been through a CI build, and a green CI build being the main criteria for going further, f.e. to the review state. I would not like code laying around with no checkin’s. Having a requirement that code is checked in small pieces, 4-8 hours work max, and AT LEAST daily checkins, a manual code review comes second down the lane. I would expect review quality gates to happen before merging back to main, or before merging to release.  But that would all be on checked-in code.  Branching is absolutely one way to ease the pain.   Another way we are using is automatic quality builds, running metrics, coverage, static code analysis.  Unfortunately it takes some time, would be great to be on CI’s – but…., so it’s done scheduled every night. Based on this we get, among other stuff,  top 10 lists of suspicious code, which is then subjected to reviews.  If a person seems to be very popular on these top 10 lists, we subject every check in from that person to a review for a period. That normally helps.   None of the clients I have can afford to have every checkin reviewed, so we need to find ways around it. I don’t disagree with the nicety of having all the code reviewed, but I find it hard to find those resources in today’s enterprises. David V. Corbin | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I tend to agree with both sides. I hate having code that is not checked in, but at the same time hate having “bad” code in the repository. I have found that branching is one approach to solving this dilemma. Code is checked into the private/feature branch before the review, but is not merged over to the “official” branch until after the review. I advocate both, depending on circumstance (especially team dynamics)   - The “pre-checkin” is usually for elements that may impact the project as a whole. Think of it as another “gate” along with passing unit tests. - The “post-checkin” may very well not be at the changeset level, but correlates to a review at the “user story” level.   Again, this depends on team dynamics in play…. Robert MacLean | Microsoft ALM MVP I do not think there is no right answer for the industry as a whole. In short the question is why do you do reviews? Your question implies risk mitigation, so in low risk areas you can get away with it after check in while in high risk you need to do it before check in. An example is those new to a team or juniors need it much earlier (maybe that is before checkin, maybe that is soon after) than seniors who have shipped twenty sprints on the team. Abhimanyu Singhal | Visual Studio ALM Ranger Depends on per scenario basis. We recommend post check-in reviews when: 1. We don't want to block other checks and processes on manual code reviews. Manual reviews take time, and some pieces may not require manual reviews at all. 2. We need to trace all changes and track history. 3. We have a code promotion strategy/process in place. For risk mitigation, post checkin code can be promoted to Accepted branches. Or can be rejected. Pre Checkin Reviews are used when 1. There is a high risk factor associated 2. Reviewers are generally (most of times) have immediate availability. 3. Team does not have strict tracking needs. Simply speaking, no single process fits all scenarios. You need to select what works best for your team/project. Thomas Schissler | Visual Studio ALM Ranger This is an interesting discussion, I’m right now discussing details about executing code reviews with my teams. I see and understand the aspects you brought in, but there is another side as well, I’d like to point out. 1.) If you do reviews per check in this is not very practical as a hard rule because this will disturb the flow of the team very often or it will lead to reduce the checkin frequency of the devs which I would not accept. 2.) If you do later reviews, for example if you review PBIs, it is not easy to find out which code you should review. Either you review all changesets associate with the PBI, but then you might review code which has been changed with a later checkin and the dev maybe has already fixed the issue. Or you review the diff of the latest changeset of the PBI with the first but then you might also review changes of other PBIs. Jakob Leander | Sr. Director, Avanade In my experience, manual code review: 1. Does not get done and at the very least does not get redone after changes (regardless of intentions at start of project) 2. When a project actually do it, they often do not do it right away = errors pile up 3. Requires a lot of time discussing/defining the standard and for the team to learn it However code review is very important since e.g. even small memory leaks in a high volume web solution have big consequences In the last years I have advocated following approach for code review - Architects up front do “at least one best practice example” of each type of component and tell the team. Copy from this one. This should include error handling, logging, security etc. - Dev lead on project continuously browse code to validate that the best practices are used. Especially that patterns etc. are not broken. You can do this formally after each sprint/iteration if you want. Once this is validated it is unlikely to “go bad” even during later code changes Agree with customer to rely on static code analysis from Visual Studio as the one and only coding standard. This has HUUGE benefits - You can easily tweak to reach the level you desire together with customer - It is easy to measure for both developers/management - It is 100% consistent across code base - It gets validated all the time so you never end up getting hammered by a customer review in the end - It is easy to tell the developer that you do not want code back unless it has zero errors = minimize communication You need to track this at least during nightly builds and make sure team sees total # issues. Do not allow #issues it to grow uncontrolled. On the project I run I require code analysis to have run on code before checkin (checkin rule). This means -  You have to have clean compile (or CA wont run) so this is extra benefit = very few broken builds - You can change a few of the rules to compile as errors instead of warnings. I often do this for “missing dispose” issues which you REALLY do not want in your app Tip: Place your custom CA rules files as part of solution. That  way it works when you do branching etc. (path to CA file is relative in VS) Some may argue that CA is not as good as manual inspection. But since manual inspection in reality suffers from the 3 issues in start it is IMO a MUCH better (and much cheaper) approach from helicopter perspective Tirthankar Dutta | Director, Avanade I think code review should be run both before and after check ins. There are some code metrics that are meant to be run on the entire codebase … Also, especially on multi-site projects, one should strive to architect in a way that lets men manage the framework while boys write the repetitive code… scales very well with the need to review less by containment and imposing architectural restrictions to emphasise the design. Bruno Capuano | Microsoft ALM MVP For code reviews (means peer reviews) in distributed team I use http://www.vsanywhere.com/default.aspx  David Jobling | Global Sr. Director, Avanade Peer review is the only way to scale and its a great practice for all in the team to learn to perform and accept. In my experience you soon learn who's code to watch more than others and tune the attention. Mikkel Toudal Kristiansen | Manager, Avanade If you have several branches in your code base, you will need to merge often. This requires manual merging, when a file has been changed in both branches. It offers a good opportunity to actually review to changed code. So my advice is: Merging between branches should be done as often as possible, it should be done by a senior developer, and he/she should perform a full code review of the code being merged. As for detecting architectural smells and code smells creeping into the code base, one really good third party tools exist: Ndepend (http://www.ndepend.com/, for static code analysis of the current state of the code base). You could also consider adding StyleCop to the solution. Jesse Houwing | Visual Studio ALM Ranger I gave a presentation on this subject on the TechDays conference in NL last year. See my presentation and slides here (talk in Dutch, but English presentation): http://blog.jessehouwing.nl/2012/03/did-you-miss-my-techdaysnl-talk-on-code.html  I’d like to add a few more points: - Before/After checking is mostly a trust issue. If you have a team that does diligent peer reviews and regularly talk/sit together or peer review, there’s no need to enforce a before-checkin policy. The peer peer-programming and regular feedback during development can take care of most of the review requirements as long as the team isn’t under stress. - Under stress, enforce pre-checkin reviews, it might sound strange, if you’re already under time or budgetary constraints, but it is under such conditions most real issues start to be created or pile up. - Use tools to catch most common errors, Code Analysis/FxCop was already mentioned. HP Fortify, Resharper, Coderush etc can help you there. There are also a lot of 3rd party rules you can add to Code Analysis. I’ve written a few myself (http://fccopcontrib.codeplex.com) and various teams from Microsoft have added their own rules (MSOCAF for SharePoint, WSSF for WCF). For common errors that keep cropping up, see if you can define a rule. It’s much easier. But more importantly make sure you have a good help page explaining *WHY* it's wrong. If you have small feature or developer branches/shelvesets, you might want to review pre-merge. It’s still better to do peer reviews and peer programming, but the most important thing is that bad quality code doesn’t make it into the important branch. So my philosophy: - Use tooling as much as possible. - Make sure the team understands the tooling and the importance of the things it flags. It’s too easy to just click suppress all to ignore the warnings. - Under stress, tighten process, it’s under stress that the problems of late reviews will really surface - Most importantly if you do reviews do them as early as possible, but never later than needed. In other words, pre-checkin/post checking doesn’t really matter, as long as the review is done before the code is released. It’ll just be much more expensive to fix any review outcomes the later you find them. --- I would love to hear what you think!

    Read the article

  • SQL SERVER – Standard Reports from SQL Server Management Studio – SQL in Sixty Seconds #016 – Video

    - by pinaldave
    SQL Server management Studio 2012 is wonderful tool and has many different features. Many times, an average user does not use them as they are not aware about these features. Today, we will learn one such feature. SSMS comes with many inbuilt performance and activity reports, but we do not use it to the full potential. Connect to SQL Server Node >> Right Click on it >> Go to Reports >> Click on Standard Reports >> Pick Any Report. Please note that some of the reports can be IO intensive and not suggested to run during business hours! More on Standard Reports: SQL SERVER – Out of the Box – Activity and Performance Reports from SSSMS SQL SERVER – Generate Report for Index Physical Statistics – SSMS SQL SERVER – Configure Management Data Collection in Quick Steps I encourage you to submit your ideas for SQL in Sixty Seconds. We will try to accommodate as many as we can. If we like your idea we promise to share with you educational material. Reference: Pinal Dave (http://blog.sqlauthority.com) Filed under: Database, Pinal Dave, PostADay, SQL, SQL Authority, SQL in Sixty Seconds, SQL Query, SQL Scripts, SQL Server, SQL Server Management Studio, SQL Tips and Tricks, T SQL, Technology, Video

    Read the article

  • Software management for 2 programmers

    - by kajo
    Hi all, me and my very good friend do a small bussiness. We have company and we develop web apps using Scala. We have started 3 months ago and we have a lot of work now. We cannot afford to employ another programmer because we can't pay him now. Until now we try to manage entire developing process very simply. We use excel sheets for simple bug tracking and we work on client requests on the fly. We have no plan for next week or something similar. But now I find it very inefficient and useless. I am trying to find some rules or some methodology for small team or for only two guys. For example Scrum is, imo, unadapted for us. There are a lot of roles (ScrumMaster, Product Owner, Team...) and it seems overkill. Can you something advise me? Have you any experiences with software management in small teams? Is any methodology of current agile development fitten for pair of programmers? Is there any software management for simple bug tracking, maybe wiki or time management for two coders? thanks a lot for sharing.

    Read the article

  • Solutions for Project management [closed]

    - by user14416
    The team consists of 3 people. The method of development is Scrum. The language of the project is C++. The project will be under the control of the git system. The start up budget is 0. The following things have to be chosen: Build and Version Numbering Project documentation ( file with the most common info for current stage of the project, which will be changed every time the new version or subversion of the project emerges ) Project management tool ( like Trac or Redmine, I cannot use them, because there is no hosting ) Code documentation ( I consider Doxygen ) The following questions have arisen: What can you add to the above list of the main solutions for project management in the described project? One of three project participants has linux os (No MS Office), one has Windows and MS Office (does not want to use Libre or Open Office), one has Windows, but does not have MS Office. What formats, tools can u suggest using for project documentation? The variant of using online wiki does not fit, it must be files. OneNote mb is a good tool for project management, but because of the reason mentioned above it is not possible. What can you advise? Offer a system for Build and Version Numbering.

    Read the article

  • Software management for 2 programmers

    - by kajo
    me and my very good friend do a small bussiness. We have company and we develop web apps using Scala. We have started 3 months ago and we have a lot of work now. We cannot afford to employ another programmer because we can't pay him now. Until now we try to manage entire developing process very simply. We use excel sheets for simple bug tracking and we work on client requests on the fly. We have no plan for next week or something similar. But now I find it very inefficient and useless. I am trying to find some rules or some methodology for small team or for only two guys. For example Scrum is, imo, unadapted for us. There are a lot of roles (ScrumMaster, Product Owner, Team...) and it seems overkill. Can you something advise me? Have you any experiences with software management in small teams? Is any methodology of current agile development fitten for pair of programmers? Is there any software management for simple bug tracking, maybe wiki or time management for two coders? thanks a lot for sharing.

    Read the article

  • Different Open Source Document Management systems

    - by DJ
    HI all, Could anyone suggest some good Web based Open source Document Management systems ,other than WSS My requirements are To share pdfs/word docs/excel/access files etc Total 50 files in total of about approx 2MB each, which are updated regularly With aroung 30 users accessing them based on their rights. I would like to know if any other DMS better than WSS available. Thanks for the info.

    Read the article

  • remove duplicate source entry [closed]

    - by yosa
    Possible Duplicate: Duplicate sources.list entry but cannot find the duplicates? This is my source.list and seems fine to me # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 12.04 LTS _Precise Pangolin_ - Release amd64 (20120425)]/ precise main restricted # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 12.04 LTS _Precise Pangolin_ - Release amd64 (20120425)]/ dists/precise/restricted/binary-i386/ # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 12.04 LTS _Precise Pangolin_ - Release amd64 (20120425)]/ dists/precise/main/binary-i386/ # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.10]/ natty main restricted # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.04 _Natty Narwhal_ - Release i386 (20110427.1)]/ natty main restricted # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Release amd64 (20111012)]/ dists/oneiric/main/binary-i386/ # deb cdrom:[Ubuntu 11.10 _Oneiric Ocelot_ - Release amd64 (20111012)]/ oneiric main restricted # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from the 'backports' ## repository. ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. # deb-src http://ma.archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ natty-backports main restricted universe multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu natty partner ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. deb http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates restricted main multiverse universe deb http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-security restricted main multiverse universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main universe deb-src http://extras.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise main restricted ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates main restricted ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise universe deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates universe ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-updates multiverse ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-backports main restricted universe multiverse deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security main restricted deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security main restricted deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security universe deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security universe deb http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security multiverse deb-src http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu precise-security multiverse ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu oneiric partner ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. # See http://help.ubuntu.com/community/UpgradeNotes for how to upgrade to # newer versions of the distribution. ## Major bug fix updates produced after the final release of the ## distribution. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team. Also, please note that software in universe WILL NOT receive any ## review or updates from the Ubuntu security team. ## N.B. software from this repository is ENTIRELY UNSUPPORTED by the Ubuntu ## team, and may not be under a free licence. Please satisfy yourself as to ## your rights to use the software. Also, please note that software in ## multiverse WILL NOT receive any review or updates from the Ubuntu ## security team. ## N.B. software from this repository may not have been tested as ## extensively as that contained in the main release, although it includes ## newer versions of some applications which may provide useful features. ## Also, please note that software in backports WILL NOT receive any review ## or updates from the Ubuntu security team. ## Uncomment the following two lines to add software from Canonical's ## 'partner' repository. ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by Canonical and the ## respective vendors as a service to Ubuntu users. # deb http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner # deb-src http://archive.canonical.com/ubuntu precise partner ## This software is not part of Ubuntu, but is offered by third-party ## developers who want to ship their latest software. # deb http://packages.dotdeb.org stable all # deb-src http://packages.dotdeb.org stable all # deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/bean123ch/burg/ubuntu lucid main # deb-src http://ppa.launchpad.net/bean123ch/burg/ubuntu lucid main this is the error given by apt-get update which stops at 64% reading W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_main_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/universe amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_universe_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/main i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_main_binary-i386_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise/universe i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise_universe_binary-i386_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/restricted amd64 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise-updates_restricted_binary-amd64_Packages) W: Duplicate sources.list entry http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/ precise-updates/restricted i386 Packages (/var/lib/apt/lists/archive.ubuntu.com_ubuntu_dists_precise-updates_restricted_binary-i386_Packages)

    Read the article

  • Web Apps for Source Code Discussion

    - by Wilco
    Are there any web apps that allow for source code collaboration? I'm thinking of something that could look at an SVN repo/local folder/etc. and publish the code with support for threaded discussions under each file or class. Ideally I want to find something that I could deploy/host myself, so being based in PHP would be a huge plus.

    Read the article

  • Design Code Outside of an IDE (C#)?

    - by ryanzec
    Does anyone design code outside of an IDE? I think that code design is great and all but the only place I find myself actually design code (besides in my head) is in the IDE itself. I generally think about it a little before hand but when I go to type it out, it is always in the IDE; no UML or anything like that. Now I think having UML of your code is really good because you are able to see a lot more of the code on one screen however the issue I have is that once I type it in UML, I then have to type the actual code and that is just a big duplicate for me. For those who work with C# and design code outside of Visual Studio (or at least outside Visual Studio's text editor), what tools do you use? Do those tools allow you to convert your design to actual skeleton code? It is also possible to convert code to the design (when you update the code and need an updated UML diagram or whatnot)?

    Read the article

  • Using Barcode ID for Event Management

    - by Nimbuz
    I have a barcode scanner and laptop (ofcourse :)), I'm looking for simple event management app that can process the input from the barcode scanner and keep attendance record for our frequent private meetings. I wonder if there's an open source software available that'd allow me to manage events using code 128 barcode id cards? Many thanks for your help.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >