Search Results

Search found 2823 results on 113 pages for 'perforce branch spec'.

Page 15/113 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

• TFS Branch Parent

  - by pm_2

  Is it possible in TFS 2008 to alter the parent of a branch? I've heard this will be available in 2010, but was wondering if there was an equivelent in 2008 (even if it's more long winded)?

  Read the article

• Is OOP based on any branch of mathematics?

  - by ektrules

  I know relational databases are based on set-theory, functional programming is based on lambda calculus, logic programming is based on logic (of course :)), and now that I think of it; I'm not sure if imperative and generic programming is based on any particular branch of mathematics either.

  Read the article

• SVN branch question

  - by aspdotnetuser

  Hi, When creating a branch, what are the implications of selecting the following? Create copy in the repository from: HEAD revision in the repository Specific revision the repository Working copy

  Read the article

• How can I git archive an arbitrary branch?

  - by rpflo

  git checkout master git archive stage | tar -czf archive.tar.gz htdocs # archives master because it's checked out. How can I archives the stage branch, regardless of the current I'm on?

  Read the article

• When to delete a branch from Git?

  - by lupefiasco

  I'm relatively new to Git, and want to get advice on best practices for deleting branches. After I've created and merged a branch back into master, should I leave it hanging around for historical purposes, or should I delete it as soon as it's no longer needed for housekeeping purposes?

  Read the article

• Subversion Deployment tools: specify branch/tag, revision and target machine

  - by Terman

  What are some non commercial deployment tools that allows a developer to speficy: a branch/tag, a revision and a target machine to deploy code to? I was wondering if there's a ccnet plugin of some sort that would allow the above to be specified. I know this could be done with a NAnt deploy script. However considering we're mostly using gui tools for feedback, plus the tortoise svn repository browser, it be cool to lear if there's an GUI simple GUI tool/plugin cheers.

  Read the article

• How do I branch if message.properties-code exists

  - by skurt

  I want to branch if a message-property-code does exist or not. <g:if test="${message(code: 'default.code.foo')}"> true </g:if><g:else> false </g:else> should answer true if there a message property named default.code.foo and false if not. It fails because it answers the code if there is no property for it.

  Read the article

• Can I version dotfiles within a project without merging their history into the main line?

  - by istrasci

  I'm sure this title is fairly obscure. I'm wondering if there is some way in git to tell it that you want a certain file to use different versions of a file when moving between branches, but to overall be .gitignored from the repository. Here's my scenario: I've got a Flash Builder project (for a Flex app) that I control with git. Flex apps in Flash Builder projects create three files: .actionScriptProperties, .flexProperties, and .project. These files contain lots of local file system references (source folders, output folders, etc.), so naturally we .gitignore them from our repo. Today, I wanted to use a new library in my project, so I made a separate git branch called lib, removed the old version of the library and put in the new one. Unfortunately, this Flex library information gets stored in one of those three dot files (not sure which offhand). So when I had to switch back to the first branch (master) earlier, I was getting compile errors because master was now linked to the new library (which basically negated why I made lib in the first place). So I'm wondering if there's any way for me to continue to .gitignore these files (so my other developers don't get them), but tell git that I want it to use some kind of local "branch version" so I can locally use different versions of the files for different branches.

  Read the article

• How do I manage multiple development branches in GIT?

  - by Ian

  I have 5 branches of one system - lets call them master, London, Birmingham, Manchester and demo. These differ in only a configuration file and each has its own set of graphics files. When I do some development, I create a temp branch from master, called after the feature, and work on that. When ready to merge I checkout master, and git merge feature to bring in my work. That appears to work just fine. Now I need to get my changes into the other Branches, without losing the differences between then that are there already. How can I do that? I have been having no end of problems with Birmingham geting London's graphics, and with conflicts within the configuration file. When the branch is finally correct, I push it up to a depot, and pull each Branch down to a linux box for final testing, From there the release into production is using rsync (set to ignore the .git repository itself). This phase works just fine also. I am the only developer at the moment, but I need to get the process solid before inviting assistance :)

  Read the article

• Merge arrow in clear case

  - by cheiav

  Hi, I have to merge all objects from a sub branch to main branch recursively. I would like to merge manually by check in the code from sub branch to main branch instead of using merge command in clear case. So after the check in into the main branch I would like to draw arrow recursively to all my objects. ic from sub branch to main branch I have used this command cleartool mkhlink -unidir Merge <sub branch path>>@@/main/<<sub branch>> <<main brach path>>@@/main/LATEST But when I dit it, it is drawing the arrow for the directory only not for all contains of the directory. Please suggest how to draw the arrow recursively from sub branch to main branch objects. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Simple github fetch/merge not pulling in remote branch?

  - by chum of chance

  I have a project I forked on github to my repository. I made changes on the "experiment" branch of the project the committed the project to my fork. If you go to my branch on Github you can see the that the experiment branch was correctly committed. I would like to merge the experiment branch with the original repo (which I have rights to). I issued the following commands: git clone [email protected]:originalrepo/theproject.git git checkout -b experiment origin/experiment cd theproject git remote add experiment [email protected]:chumofchance/theproject.git git fetch experiment git merge experiment "Already up to date" However, when I view the project in explorer, it appears that nothing has changed. Am I screwing something up in regards to fetching the experiment branch (vs the master branch)?

  Read the article

• Is it possible to create a branch from a tag in TortoiseSVN without first checking out the tag from

  - by Scott Vierregger

  Our trunk directory contains about 100mb of code and we create tags from the trunk directory. Normally, this is not an issue because a tag takes up no space until you need to use it for something. Since branches are created from tags in SVN, how can I create a branch from a tag wtihout first checking out the tag? It appears I need to do a Tortoise Update from Windows Explorer to get the tag down to my local machine before I can use Tortoise Branch/Tag... to create a branch from it. This seems illogical since we don't make changes to tag folders, and it requires that I check out 100mb of code, only to create a branch, and then check out another 100mb of code in the branch folder, where the changes will actually be made. Ideally, I'd be able to create a branch directly in the repository via RepoBrowser - but I can't see an option for it there. Am I missing something?

  Read the article

• TFS Changeset history using QueryHistory after branch rename

  - by bryantb

  I'm using the VersionControlServer.QueryHistory method to retrieve a list of files that have changed during a timespan that ranges from 5/1/2009 to 10/1/2009. My results unexpectedly only included items that had changed after 9/1/2009. I then realized that the path that I was using, $/Project/Reports/Main, didn't exist until 9/1/2009. Before 9/1/2009, there had been another node named $/Project/Main/Reports, which was renamed to $/Project/Reports/Main. When I query from Source Control Explorer I can see the entire history (5/1/2009 - 10/1/2009) that I expect to see. However, I can't get the same results via the API. I've tried to specify the branch that no longer exists because it was renamed, but not surprisingly I get zero results. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• git strategy to have a set of commits limited to a particular branch

  - by becomingGuru

  I need to merge between dev and master frequently. I also have a commit that I need to apply to dev only, for things to work locally. Earlier I only merged from dev to master, so I had a branch production_changes that contained the "undo commit" of the dev special commit. and from the master, I merged this. Used to work fine. Now each time I merge from dev to master and vice versa, I am having to cherry-pick and apply the same commit again and again :(. Which is UGLY. What strategy can I adapt so that I can seamlessly merge between 2 branches, yet retain some of the changes only on one of those branches?

  Read the article

• git rebase branch with all subbranches

  - by knittl

  is it possible to rebase a branch with all it's subbranches in git? i often use branches as quick/mutable tags to mark certain commits. * master * * featureA-finished * * origin/master now i want to rebase -i master onto origin/master, to change/reword the commit featureA-finished^ after git rebase -i --onto origin/master origin/master master, i basically want the history to be: * master * * featureA-finished * (changed/reworded) * origin/master but what i get is: * master * * (same changeset as featureA-finished) * (changed/reworded) | * featureA-finished |.* (original commit i wanted to edit) * origin/master is there a way around it, or am i stuck with recreating the branches on the new rebased commits?

  Read the article

• How do I merge a local branch into TFS

  - by Johnny

  hi, I did a stupid thing and branched my project on my local disk instead of doing it on the TFS. So now I have two projects on my disk: the old one which has TFS bindings and the new, which doesn't. I want to merge those changes back into the TFS project. How would I go about doing that? I can't do Compare because my local branch has no TFS bindings. There should be some way to compare the differences between the two projects locally and then meld the differences into the old project and check-in, but I can't find an easy way of doing that. Any other solutions?

  Read the article

• Move a sequential set of commits from one (local) branch to another

  - by jpswain09

  Is there a way to move a sequential set of commits from one (local) branch to another? I have searched quite a bit and still haven't found a clear answer for what I want to do. For example, say I have this: master A---B---C \ feature-1 M---N---O---P---R---Q And I have decided that the last 3 commits would be better off like this: master A---B---C \ feature-1 M---N---O \ f1-crazy-idea P---R---Q I know I can do this, and it does work: $ git log --graph --pretty=oneline (copying down sha-1 ID's of P, R, Q) $ git checkout feature-1 $ git reset --hard HEAD^^^ $ git checkout -b f1-crazy-idea $ git cherry-pick <P sha1> $ git cherry-pick <R sha1> $ git cherry-pick <Q sha1> I was hoping that instead there would be a more concise way to do this, possibly with git rebase, although I haven't had much luck. Any insight would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jamie

  Read the article

• Visualizing branch topology in git

  - by Benjol

  I'm playing with git in isolation on my own machine, and even like that I find it difficult to maintain a mental model of all my branches and commits. I know I can do a git log to see the commit history from where I am, but is there a way to see the entire branch topography, something like these ascii maps that seem to be used everywhere for explaining branches? .-A---M---N---O---P / / / / / I B C D E \ / / / / `-------------' It just feels like someone coming along and trying to pick up my repository would have difficulty working out exactly what was going on. I guess I'm influenced by AccuRev's stream browser...

  Read the article

• git: Your branch is Ahead by X commits

  - by SeanJA

  How does this actually come about? I am working in one repo by myself at the moment, so this is my workflow: 1- change files 2- commit 4- repeat until satisfied 4- push to master Then when I do a git status it tells me that my branch is ahead by X commits (presumably the same number of commits that I have made). Is it because when you push the code it doesn't actually update your locally cached files (in the .git folders)? git pull seems to 'fix' this strange message, but I am still curious why it happens, maybe I am using git wrong?

  Read the article

• List tags with commits in the same format like git branch -v

  - by NickSoft

  Hi I would like to list tags like it's listed by: # git branch -v * devel e7f5e36 firxed bugs master 63e9c56 remove unused code without the * (you can't checkout tag). It would be good to have an option to list full or short SHA1. A bash script is also fine, but it would be nice to use git commands more and shell scripting less. I've read this question Git - how to tell which commit a tag points to and it helped me, but it's not all I want. Edit: I didn't know that annotated tags had SHA1. I wanted SHA1 of commits that tag points to, not the tags themselfs.

  Read the article

• SVN: Branches for Every Little Change?

  - by yar

  Hi. We have a client (who has a client, who has a client) who is driving us mad with change requests to a code base (in PHP). Our first response was to just work in a main trunk in SVN, but the client often comes back and requests that a certain change needs to get pushed to the live servers ASAP. On the other hand, other changes get reduced in priority suddenly, which originally came grouped with other changes (seemingly). We are thinking of using a branch for every change request. Is this mad? What other solutions might work? Thanks! Edit: This is a really hard question to choose the correct answer for. Thanks to everybody for your great answers. Edit: I know that the best answer I chose was not particularly popular. I too wanted to find a technical solution to this problem. But now I think that if the client wants software with features that can be deployed in a modular fashion... this problem should not be solved in our use of the version control system. It would have to be designed into the software. Edit: Now it's almost a month later and my coworker/client has convinced me that multiple branches is the way to go. This is not just due to the client's insanity, but also based on our need to be able to determine if a feature is "ready to go" or "needs more work" or whatever. I don't have the SVN with me, but we merge using the advice from the SVN Cookbook: you merge the branch from the revision it was branched to the head revision. Also, using this system, we merge all branches at some point and that becomes the new QA and then live build. Then we branch from that. Last Edit (Perhaps): Months later, this system is still working out for us. We create branches for every ticket and rarely have problems. On the other hand, we do try to keep things separate as far as what people are working on... Two Years Later: We use GIT now, and now this system is actually quite reasonable.

  Read the article

• Detecting branch reintegration or merge in pre-commit script

  - by Shawn Chin

  Within a pre-commit script, is it possible (and if so, how) to identify commits stemming from an svn merge? svnlook changed ... shows files that have changed, but does not differentiate between merges and manual edits. Ideally, I would also like to differentiate between a standard merge and a merge --reintegrate. Background: I'm exploring the possibility of using pre-commit hooks to enforce SVN usage policies for our project. One of the policies state that some directories (such as /trunk) should not be modified directly, and changed only through the reintegration of feature branches. The pre-commit script would therefore reject all changes made to these directories apart from branch reintegrations. Any ideas? Update: I've explored the svnlook command, and the closest I've got is to detect and parse changes to the svn:mergeinfo property of the directory. This approach has some drawback: svnlook can flag up a change in properties, but not which property was changed. (a diff with the proplist of the previous revision is required) By inspecting changes in svn:mergeinfo, it is possible to detect that svn merge was run. However, there is no way to determine if the commits are purely a result of the merge. Changes manually made after the merge will go undetected. (related post: Diff transaction tree against another path/revision)

  Read the article

• std::conditional compile-time branch evaluation

  - by cmannett85

  Compiling this: template < class T, class Y, class ...Args > struct isSame { static constexpr bool value = std::conditional< sizeof...( Args ), typename std::conditional< std::is_same< T, Y >::value, isSame< Y, Args... >, // Error! std::false_type >::type, std::is_same< T, Y > >::type::value; }; int main() { qDebug() << isSame< double, int >::value; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Gives me this compiler error: error: wrong number of template arguments (1, should be 2 or more) The issue is that isSame< double, int > has an empty Args parameter pack, so isSame< Y, Args... > effectively becomes isSame< Y > which does not match the signature. But my question is: Why is that branch being evaluated at all? sizeof...( Args ) is false, so the inner std:conditional should not be evaluated. This isn't a runtime piece of code, the compiler knows that sizeof..( Args ) will never be true with the given template types. If you're curious, it's supposed to be a variadic version of std::is_same, not that it works...

  Read the article

• How to cleanly add after-the-fact commits from the same feature into git tree

  - by Dennis

  I am one of two developers on a system. I make most of the commits at this time period. My current git workflow is as such: there is master branch only (no develop/release) I make a new branch when I want to do a feature, do lots of commits, and then when I'm done, I merge that branch back into master, and usually push it to remote. ...except, I am usually not done. I often come back to alter one thing or another and every time I think it is done, but it can be 3-4 commits before I am really done and move onto something else. Problem The problem I have now is that .. my feature branch tree is merged and pushed into master and remote master, and then I realize that I am not really done with that feature, as in I have finishing touches I want to add, where finishing touches may be cosmetic only, or may be significant, but they still belong to that one feature I just worked on. What I do now Currently, when I have extra after-the-fact commits like this, I solve this problem by rolling back my merge, and re-merging my feature branch into master with my new commits, and I do that so that git tree looks clean. One clean feature branch branched out of master and merged back into it. I then push --force my changes to origin, since my origin doesn't see much traffic at the moment, so I can almost count that things will be safe, or I can even talk to other dev if I have to coordinate. But I know it is not a good way to do this in general, as it rewrites what others may have already pulled, causing potential issues. And it did happen even with my dev, where git had to do an extra weird merge when our trees diverged. Other ways to solve this which I deem to be not so great Next best way is to just make those extra commits to the master branch directly, be it fast-forward merge, or not. It doesn't make the tree look as pretty as in my current way I'm solving this, but then it's not rewriting history. Yet another way is to wait. Maybe wait 24 hours and not push things to origin. That way I can rewrite things as I see fit. The con of this approach is time wasted waiting, when people may be waiting for a fix now. Yet another way is to make a "new" feature branch every time I realize I need to fix something extra. I may end up with things like feature-branch feature-branch-html-fix, feature-branch-checkbox-fix, and so on, kind of polluting the git tree somewhat. Is there a way to manage what I am trying to do without the drawbacks I described? I'm going for clean-looking history here, but maybe I need to drop this goal, if technically it is not a possibility.

  Read the article

• Do you know the minimum builds to create on any branch?

  - by Martin Hinshelwood

  You should always have three builds on your team project. These should be setup and tested using an empty solution before you write any code at all. Figure: Three builds named in the format [TeamProject].[AreaPath]_[Branch].[Gate|CI|Nightly] for every branch.   These builds should use the same XAML build workflow; however you may set them up to run a different set of tests depending on the time it takes to run a full build. Gate – Only needs to run the smallest set of tests, but should run most if not all of the Unit Test. This is run before developers are allowed to check-in CI – This should run all Unit Tests and all of the automated UI tests. It is run after a developer check-in. Nightly – The Nightly build should run all of the Unit Tests, all of the Automated UI tests and all of the Load and Performance tests. The nightly build is time consuming and will run but once a night. Packaging of your Product for testing the next day may be done at this stage as well. Figure: You can control what tests are run and what data is collected while they are running. Note: We do not run all the tests every time because of the time consuming nature of running some tests, but ALL tests should be run overnight. Note: If you had a really large project with thousands of tests including long running Load tests you may need to add a Weekly build to the mix.     Figure: Bad example, you can’t tell what these builds do if they are in a larger list   Figure: Good example, you know exactly what project, branch and type of build these are for.   Technorati Tags: SSW,SSW Rules,VS2010,VS ALM,Team Build 2010,Team Build

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >