Search Results

Search found 1622 results on 65 pages for 'branch'.

Page 18/65 | < Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >

• Code review process when using GIT as a repository?

  - by Sid

  What is the best process for code review when using GIT? Current process: We have a GIT server with a master branch to which everyone commits Devs work off the local master mirror or a local feature branch Devs commit to server's master branch Devs request code review on last commit Problem: Any bug in code review are already in master by the time it's caught. Worse, usually someone has burnt a few hours trying to figure out what happened... So, we would like To do code review BEFORE delivery into the 'master'. Have a process that works with a global team (no over the shoulder reviews!) something that doesn't require an individual dev to be at his desk/machine to be powered up so someone else can remote in (remove human dependency, devs go home at different timezones) We use TortoiseGIT for a visual representation of a list of files changed, diff'ing files etc. Some of us drop into a GIT shell when the GUI isn't enough, but ideally we'd like the workflow to be simple and GUI based (I want the tool to lift any burden, not my devs).

  Read the article

• Looking for the better way to combine deep architecture refactoring with feature based development

  - by voroninp

  Problem statement: Given: TFS as Source Control Heavy desktop client application with tons of legacy code with bad or almost absent architecture design. Clients constantly requiring new features with sound quality, fast delivery and constantly complaining on user unfriendly UI. Problem: Application undoubtedly requires deep refactoring. This process inevitably makes application unstable and dedicated stabilization phase is needed. We've tried: Refactoring in master with periodical merges from master (MB) to feature branch (FB). (my mistake) Result: Many unstable branches. What we are advised: Create additional branch for refactoring (RB) periodically synchronizing it with MB via merge from MB to RB. After RB is stabilized we substitute master with RB and create new branch for further refactoring. This is the plan. But here I expect the real hell of merging MB to RB after merging any FB to MB. The main advantage: Stable master most of the time. Are there any better alternatives to the procees?

  Read the article

• git pull not working

  - by dorelal

  I am not using github. We have git setup on our machine. I created a branch from master called experiment. However when I am trying to do git pull I am getting following message. > git pull You asked me to pull without telling me which branch you want to merge with, and 'branch.experiment.merge' in your configuration file does not tell me either. Please specify which branch you want to merge on the command line and try again (e.g. 'git pull <repository> <refspec>'). See git-pull(1) for details. Here is result of git remote show origin > git remote show origin * remote origin Fetch URL: ssh://git.domain.com/var/git/app.git Push URL: ssh://git.domain.com/var/git/app.git HEAD branch: master Remote branches: experiment tracked master tracked Local branches configured for 'git pull': master merges with remote master Local refs configured for 'git push': experiment pushes to experiment (local out of date) master pushes to master (up to date) As I read the message above experiment is mapped to origin/experiment. And my local repository knows that it is out of date. Then why I am not able to do git pull?

  Read the article

• Question about 'git branching'

  - by michael

  Hi, I read this about git branch: http://book.git-scm.com/3_basic_branching_and_merging.html so I follow it and create 1 branch : experimental And I 1. switch to experimental branch (git checkout experimental) 2. make a bunch of changes 3. commit it (git commit -a) 4. switch to master branch (git checkout master) 5. make some changes and commit there 6. switch back to experimental (git checkout experimental) 7. merge master change to experimental (git merge master) 8. there are some conflicts but after I resolve them, I did 'git add myfile' And now i am stuck, I can't move back to master when I do $ git checkout master error: Entry 'res/layout/my_item.xml' would be overwritten by merge. Cannot merge. and I did: $ git rebase --abort No rebase in progress? and I did : $ git add res/layout/socialhub_list_item.xml $ git checkout master error: Entry 'res/layout/my_item.xml' would be overwritten by merge. Cannot merge. What can I do so that I can go back to my master branch? Thank you.

  Read the article

• TFS CM resource recommendations / some questions

  - by John

  I am working with a small development shop that consists of a group of 5 developers and 1 QA person. We are using TFS and need to get more sophisticated on how we use this tool. Currently the development team checks in their code each evening. A nightly build runs and pushes the output out on a network share. Our QA person uses this build for testing the next day. Sometimes the build off the trunk codebase has issues/bugs that hinder the QA process, and it hasn’t been a giant issue in the past, but we now want to get to a state where we have our QA person testing on a stable QA build. So I believe we need to create a branch (call it QA), and the developers will continue to develop off the trunk, but the QA person will use builds created from code in the QA branch. Seems simple enough, but we have started doing code reviews as well. So we have another desire in that only code that has been code reviewed can be promoted to the QA branch. Each developer works off a TFS item, and when they check in a changeset, they do it against a TFS item which creates a link between a checked in code file and a TFS item. Eventually the TFS item becomes complete and ready for code review. All code attached to the TFS item is reviewed. How can the versions of these files get promoted to the QA branch? In the QA branch, if a bug is found, we want to fix it in the QA branch and have the changes migrated back to the trunk. I believe TFS has a way to automatically do this doesn’t it? Long story short, we want to get to a build and CM environment that I believe is pretty standard, but we are unaware of how to make this happen with TFS. Given our situation above, can someone point out a book or website(s) that would address our specific needs? We would like to make this happen without having to get too deep in CM theory or TFS. I very much appreciate any and all suggestions! Thanks, John

  Read the article

• Git: hide commit messages on remote repo

  - by Sebastian Bechtel

  Hi, I don't know how to bring my problem on the point so I try to explain it a bit ;-) When working with git on my local maschine I usually commit a lot. For this I use topic branches. Then I merge such a topic branch into a branch called develop which will be pushed to a remote repo. I always merge with --no-ff so their is always a commit for my whole topic. Now I'd like to only push this commit with a specified description what I did on the whole in this branch. I would prefer this because you can look at the commit history on the server and see directly what happend and don't need to read every single commit. And for my local work I would have the full history if I want to reset my branch or something similar. I don't know if their is a way to do this in git but it would be very useful for me so I give it a try to ask you ;-) Best regards, Sebastian

  Read the article

• Git merge of same and externally modified file

  - by neduma

  I have inherited some code (from zip file) from a developer and git initialzed, made changes and set of check-ins progressively. Now, the same developer released the same code with his changes and gave me the another zip file. How do i merge my changes which i have it my git repo and his recent changes from the second zip file contents? Ideally, i would like to have the code which should be accumalation of both my changes and the developer recent changes. I tried to create branch b1 from my master branch and applied second zip file contents on top of that. committed those files in the branch and did 'git checkout master; git merge b1' - but, i do not get my changes, only his changes in my master branch.

  Read the article

• github like workflow on private server over ssh

  - by Jesse

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

  Read the article

• Git How do I Push a project, that was Downloaded from Source

  - by JZ

  I worked with a graphic designer that did not clone from my github account. He downloaded the project from source rather than using the command "git clone". Since he pulled his files, a month has gone by and I want to do the following tasks: Create a new branch Push the graphic designers project into that branch Merge his branch with Master I've tried the following the github forking guide with not much luck; when I attempt to push the files into a new branch I get an error: fatal: Not a git repository (or any of the parent directories): .git How do I do this?

  Read the article

• Linq join with an inner collection

  - by bronze

  Hi, I am trying a LINQ to Object query on 2 collections Customer.Orders Branches.Pending.Orders (Collection within a collection) I want to output each branch which is yet to deliver any order of the customer. var match = from order in customer.Orders join branch in Branches on order equals branch.Pending.Orders select branch; This does not work, I get : The type of one of the expressions in the join clause is incorrect. Type inference failed in the call to 'GroupJoin'. From my search, I think this is because Order or collection of Orders does not implement equals. If this query worked, it will still be wrong, as it will return a branch if the customer's and pending orders match exactly. I want a result if any of the order matches. I am learning Linq, and looking for a approach to address such issues, rather than the solution itself. I would have done this in SQL like this; SELECT b.branch_name from Customers c, Branches b, Orders o WHERE c.customer_id = o.customer_id AND o.branch_id = b.branch_id AND c.customer_id = 'my customer' AND o.order_status = 'pending'

  Read the article

• Subversion merging, tree merge

  - by krystan honour

  I need to merge changes from a branch back into trunk but want to continue work on the existing branch. I was going to use a re-integrate merge but realised this is not suitable as I will need to recreate my branch etc which for a variety of reasons is not desirable. What I really want to do is merge the current revisions in the branch down to head and then keep people working on their current working copies. So my question is , can tree merge be used to solve this or do I have to reintegrate and recreate.

  Read the article

• Manually insert items into DDL after data binding...

  - by WeeShian

  I have a dropdownlist, which dynamically populate data from SQL Server and i wanna manually insert two items on top of the DDL after data binding. So, the DDL would has data something like this: Select Branch (manually insert) ALL (manually insert) AIR AMP ABG ... I tried to achieve it by using code below: ddlBranch.Items.Insert(0, "Select Branch") ddlBranch.Items(0).Value = CMM.sExcVal1 ddlBranch.Items.Insert(1, "ALL") ddlBranch.Items(1).Value = "ALL" but it comes out giving me the data like this: Select Branch (manually insert) ALL (manually insert) ('AIR' branch should be here but it's gone) AMP ABG ... After manually insert the 'ALL' item into the DDL, the 'AIR' is gone which is already replaced by the 'ALL'. How can i remain all the data from server and at the same time i can manually insert two items?

  Read the article

• What guides or standards do you use for CVS in your team ?

  - by PaulHurleyuk

  I'm starting to do a small amount of development within my company. I'm intending to use Git for CVS, and I'm interested to see what guidelines or standards people are using around CVS in their groups, similar to coding standards are often written within the group for the group. I'm assuming there will be things like; Commit often (at least every day/week/meeting etc) Release builds are always made from the master branch Prior to release, a new branch will be created for Testing and tagged as such. only bug fixes from this point onwards. The final release of this will be tagged as such and the bug fixes merged back into the trunk Each developer will have a public repo New features should get their own branch Obviously a lot of this will depend on what cvs you're using and how you've structured it. Similar Questions; http://stackoverflow.com/questions/273695/git-branch-naming-best-practices http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2006265/is-there-an-standard-naming-convention-for-git-tags

  Read the article

• Version control: delete branches after merging?

  - by Nathan Long

  When you branch some code, finish working with the branch, and merge it back to the trunk, what do you do with the branch? Delete it from the repository? Keep it for reference? It seems like you would keep it for reference, but I imagine the /branches directory could get pretty cluttered. (If this isn't something people generally agree on, please comment and I'll make it a community wiki.)

  Read the article

• svn dev cycle. howto lots minor "features" pending for approval.

  - by Julian Davchev

  Hi I've read similar questions regarding that but still feel the need to ask a question. I have scenario where we have lots of tiny "features" pending for approval. I generally see two approaches. 1.Keep trunk solid and have tons of branches for each tiny "feature". Basically every new thingy is a branch. Cons: - Might become nightmare to support so many branches no matter how small a change. Keeping all branches in sync etc etc. - Worst con I see in this is setup of test system so one can easily examine changes to approve (basically need to support all branches which seems insane). Pros: - Seemningly easy once approved a branch to be merged back to trunk and new release to be tagged and deployed. 2.For big features a branch is released and for small changes all goes in trunk(relatively stable) directly. Pros: - Easier to set test system as most of the time all will be directly visible. For big features should be easy to maintain separate branch on test. Cons: - Don't really see how release will go. I will not be able to basically release one part of trunk This would involve cherrypicking which is crazy to follow. Other approach is I just enforce that after some time (a week or so) all small features need to be approved so they can deployed before giving new tasks. I just create release branch and either all or none of small features are going live. This will be some fun discussion with head people. I guess having lots of small pending stuff is very problematic to follow technically.

  Read the article

• "Hiding" things in GIT

  - by bobobobo

  Git noob here. I know this is against the principal of "distributed source control" but I want to "password protect" certain development branches in my GIT repository. That is, I don't want that branch to be available via git branch -r, except to a certain group of developers who need access to that branch, via some sort of password. Possible?

  Read the article

• Can I rename LOCAL, REMOTE and BASE as used in git mergetool?

  - by carleeto

  Lets say I'm doing a rebase B of a branch onto master and there's a conflict. git opens up the default merge tool with 3 files as input : file.LOCAL, file.BASE, file.REMOTE (they're named a little differently, but LOCAL, BASE and REMOTE are in the file names and is how they are distinguished). Now, according to the mergetool man page: $LOCAL is set to the name of a temporary file containing the contents of the file on the current branch; $REMOTE set to the name of a temporary file containing the contents of the file to be merged, and $BASE set to the name of a temporary file containing the common base for the merge. That really does not make sense to me. LOCAL is the current state of the branch. Where I get lost is BASE and REMOTE. So my question is : Is it possible to make git use the branch name instead of LOCAL and similarly more meaningful names other than BASE and REMOTE? For example, if the branch name is FeatureX and the BASE = the file as it exists in master, is there a way to get git to substitute FeatureX for LOCAL and master for BASE, so that it is more apparent where the source is coming from? This is especially a problem when doing a rebase.

  Read the article

• In VS2010, is there a way to know which application pool a given w3wp.exe is serving, to then decide

  - by Peter Mounce

  So I'm debugging some websites (one from trunk, one from branch) running locally, in separate apppools. I have trunk and branch solutions open in two VS instances. I'd like to debug trunk in one, and branch in the other. I'd like to know if there's a way to know which application pool each w3wp.exe is serving, to know which one is which when attaching the debugger.

  Read the article

• HKLM\SYSTEM\WPA key list changed!!

  - by Andrii

  Hello everyone! Could you please help me and find the reason why list of keys in windows registry branch "HKLM\SYSTEM\WPA\" are changing. Maybe someone knows what exactly this branch contains (i mean what information reflects in keys of branch "HKLM\SYSTEM\WPA\")??? I will be grateful for any information! Thank you very much! P.S. Excuse me for my bad English:)

  Read the article

• CM and Agile validation process of merging to the Trunk?

  - by LoneCM

  Hello All, We are a new Agile shop and we are encountering an issue that I hope others have seen. In our process, the Trunk is considered an integration branch; it does not have to be releasable, but it does have to be stable and functional for others to branch off of. We create Feature branches of the Trunk for new development. All work and testing occurs in these branches. An individual branch pulls up as needed to stay integrated with the Trunk as other features that are accepted and are committed. But now we have numerous feature branches. Each are focused, have a short life cycle, and are pushed to the trunk as they are completed, so we not debating the need for the branches and trying very much to be Agile. My issue comes in here: I require that the branches pull up from the Trunk at the end of their life cycle and complete the validation, regression testing and handle all configuration issues before pushing to the trunk. Once reintegrated into the Trunk, I ask for at least a build and an automated smoke test. However, I am now getting push back on the Trunk validation. The argument is that the developers can merge the code and not need the QA validation steps because they already complete the work in the feature branch. Therefore, the extra testing is not needed. I have attempted to remind management of the numerous times "brainless" merges have failed. Thier solution is to instead of build and regression testing to have the developer diff the Feature branch and the newly merged Trunk. That process in thier mind would replace the regression testing I asked for. So what do you require when you reintegrate back to the Trunk? What are the issues that we will encounter if we remove this step and replace with the diff? Is the cost of staying Agile the additional work of the intergration of the branches? Thanks for any input. LoneCM

  Read the article

• What guides or standards do you use for version control in your team ?

  - by PaulHurleyuk

  I'm starting to do a small amount of development within my company. I'm intending to use Git for version control, and I'm interested to see what guidelines or standards people are using around version in their groups, similar to coding standards are often written within the group for the group. I'm assuming there will be things like; Commit often (at least every day/week/meeting etc) Release builds are always made from the master branch Prior to release, a new branch will be created for Testing and tagged as such. only bug fixes from this point onwards. The final release of this will be tagged as such and the bug fixes merged back into the trunk Each developer will have a public repo New features should get their own branch Obviously a lot of this will depend on what cvs you're using and how you've structured it. Similar Questions; http://stackoverflow.com/questions/273695/git-branch-naming-best-practices http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2006265/is-there-an-standard-naming-convention-for-git-tags

  Read the article

• Creating Dynamic variables from json response

  - by c0mrade

  My JSON response looks like this : {"sample":[{"id":"2","name":"branch name"},{"id":"3","name":"branch name 2"}]} My function looks like this : function getJSONObjects(){ $.getJSON("http://localhost/api/branches", function(data){ $.each(data.sample, function(i,item){ var loc = "branch"; eval("var " + loc + item.id + "=123;"); alert(loc + item.id); }); }); } The idea is to create branch + id object so I can do something with it(create marker on a map), so I tried to assign it any value to see if this was working. I wanted both branch2 and branch3 to alert 123 so I have something to start with. But currently this alerts branch2 and branch3 instead of 123. I have little experience with creating dynamic variables/objects can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong or maybe another approach towards solving this?

  Read the article

• How does mercurial's bisect work when the range includes branching?

  - by Joshua Goldberg

  If the bisect range includes multiple branches, how does hg bisect's search work. Does it effectively bisect each sub-branch (I would think that would be inefficient)? For instance, borrowing, with gratitude, a diagram from an answer to this related question, what if the bisect got to changeset 7 on the "good" right-side branch first. @ 12:8ae1fff407c8:bad6 | o 11:27edd4ba0a78:bad5 | o 10:312ba3d6eb29:bad4 |\ | o 9:68ae20ea0c02:good33 | | | o 8:916e977fa594:good32 | | | o 7:b9d00094223f:good31 | | o | 6:a7cab1800465:bad3 | | o | 5:a84e45045a29:bad2 | | o | 4:d0a381a67072:bad1 | | o | 3:54349a6276cc:good4 |/ o 2:4588e394e325:good3 | o 1:de79725cb39a:good2 | o 0:2641cc78ce7a:good1 Will it then look only between 7 and 12, missing the real first-bad that we care about? (thus using "dumb" numerical order) or is it smart enough to use the full topography and to know that the first bad could be below 7 on the right-side branch, or could still be anywhere on the left-side branch. The purpose of my question is both (a) just to understand the algorithm better, and (b) to understand whether I can liberally extend my initial bisect range without thinking hard about what branch I go to. I've been in high-branching bisect situations where it kept asking me after every test to extend beyond the next merge, so that the whole procedure was essentially O(n). I'm wondering if I can just throw the first "good" marker way back past some nest of merges without thinking about it much, and whether that would save time and give correct results.

  Read the article

• Using IF in T-SQL weakens or breaks execution plan caching?

  - by AnthonyWJones

  It has been suggest to me that the use of IF statements in t-SQL batches is detrimental to performance. I'm trying to find some confirmation of this assertion. I'm using SQL Server 2005 and 2008. The assertion is that with the following batch:- IF @parameter = 0 BEGIN SELECT ... something END ELSE BEGIN SELECT ... something else END SQL Server cannot re-use the execution plan generated because the next execution may need a different branch. This implies that SQL Server will eliminate one branch entirely from execution plan on the basis that for the current execution it can already determine which branch is needed. Is this really true? In addition what happens in this case:- IF EXISTS (SELECT ....) BEGIN SELECT ... something END ELSE BEGIN SELECT ... something else END where it's not possible to determine in advance which branch will be executed?

  Read the article

• TFS 2010 Source Branches Never The Same

  - by Lukasz

  I have my root branch lets call it Alpha and one branch that was branched from that root lets call it Beta. I made some changes in the Beta branch and merged them back to Alpha. In theory now Alpha and Beta should be identical branches and when I do a diff they are identical. If I attempt to merge Alpha with Beta again without making any changes the changes I originally merged from Beta to Alpha will merge again from Alpha to Beta. Completing that merge and checking in the branches are the same. Now I can merge again. I can do this over and over again with no end. I was just wondering if anyone has ran into this problem before and how it can be fix. At first I thought it was harmless but when I make more changes in the Beta branch and merge the new changes as well as the original changes get merges overriding changes to these files making a mess. Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25  | Next Page >