Search Results

Search found 341 results on 14 pages for 'branching'.

Page 2/14 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Simple Branching and Merging with SVN

    Its a good idea not to do too much work without checking something into source control.  By too much work I mean typically on the order of a couple of hours at most, and certainly its a good practice to check in anything you have before you leave the office for the day.  But what if your changes break the build (on the build server you do have a build server dont you?) or would cause problems for others on your team if they get the latest code?  The solution with Subversion is branching and merging (incidentally, if youre using Microsoft Visual Studio Team System, you can shelve your changes and share shelvesets with others, which accomplishes many of the same things as branching and merging, but is a bit simpler to do). Getting Started Im going to assume you have Subversion installed along with the nearly ubiquitous client, TortoiseSVN.  See my previous post on installing SVN server if you want to get it set up real quick (you can put it on your workstation/laptop just to learn how it works easily enough). Overview When you know you are going to be working on something that you wont be able to check in quickly, its a good idea to start a branch.  Its also perfectly fine to create the branch after-the-fact (have you ever started something thinking it would be an hour and 4 hours later realized you were nowhere near done?).  In any event, the first thing you need to do is create a branch.  A branch is simply a copy of the current trunk (a typical subversion setup has root directories called trunk, tags, and branches its a good idea to keep this and to put your branches in the branches folder).  Once you have a new branch, you need to switch your working copy so that it is bound to your branch.  As you work,  you may want to merge in changes that are happening in the trunk to your branch, and ultimately when you are done youll want to merge your branch back into the trunk.  When done, you can delete your branch (or not, but it may add clutter).  To sum up: Create a new branch Switch your local working copy to the new branch Develop in the branch (commit changes, etc.) Merge changes from trunk into your branch Merge changes from branch into trunk Delete the branch Create a new branch From the root of your repository, right-click and select TortoiseSVN > Branch/tag as shown at right (click to enlarge).  This will bring up the Copy (Branch / Tag) interface.  By default the From WC at URL: should be pointing at the trunk of your repository.  I recommend (after ensuring that you have the latest version) that you choose to make the copy from the HEAD revision in the repository (the first radio button).  In the To URL: textbox, you should change the URL from /trunk to /branches/NAME_OF_BRANCH.  You can name the branch anything you like, but its often useful to give it your name (if its just for your use) or some useful information (such as a datestamp or a bug/issue ID from that it relates to, or perhaps just the name of the feature you are adding. When youre done with that, enter in a log message for your new branch.  If you want to immediately switch your local working copy to the new branch/tag, check the box at the bottom of the dialog (Switch working copy to new branch/tag).  You can see an example at right. Assuming everything works, you should very quickly see a window telling you the Copy finished, like the one shown below: Switch Local Working Copy to New Branch If you followed the instructions above and checked the box when you created your branch, you dont need to do this step.  However, if you have a branch that already exists and you would like to switch over to working on it, you can do so by using the Switch command.  Youll find it in the explorer context menu under TortoiseSVN > Switch: This brings up a dialog that shows you your current binding, and lets you enter in a new URL to switch to: In the screenshot above, you can see that Im currently bound to a branch, and so I could switch back to the trunk or to another branch.  If youre not sure what to enter here, you can click the [] next to the URL textbox to explore your repository and find the appropriate root URL to use.  Also, the dropdown will show you URLs that might be a good fit (such as the trunk of the current repository). Develop in the Branch Once you have created a branch and switched your working copy to use it,  you can make changes and Commit them as usual.  Your commits are now going into the branch, so they wont impact other users or the build server that are working off of the trunk (or their own branches).  In theory you can keep on doing this forever, but practically its a good idea to periodically merge the trunk into your branch, and/or keep your branches short-lived and merge them back into the trunk before they get too far out of sync. Merge Changes from Trunk into your Branch Once you have been working in a branch for a little while, change to the trunk will have occurred that youll want to merge into your branch.  Its much safer and easier to integrate changes in small increments than to wait for weeks or months and then try to merge in two very different codebases.  To perform the merge, simply go to the root of your branch working copy and right click, select TortoiseSVN->Merge.  Youll be presented with this dialog: In this case you want to leave the default setting, Merge a range of revisions.  Click Next.  Now choose the URL to merge from.  You should select the trunk of your current repository (which should be in the dropdownlist, or you can click the [] to browse your repository for the correct URL).  You can leave everything else blank since you want to merge everything: Click Next.  Again you can leave the default settings.  If you want to do something more granular than everything in the trunk, you can select a different Merge depth, to include merging just one item in the tree.  You can also perform a Test merge to see what changes will take place before you click Merge (which is often a good idea).  Heres what the dialog should look like before you click Merge: After clicking Merge (or Test merge) you should see a confirmation like this (it will say Test Only in the title if you click Test merge): Now you should build your solution, run all of your tests, and verify that your branch still works the way it should, given the updates that youve just integrated from the trunk.  Once everything works, Commit your changes, and then continue with your work on the branch.  Note that until you commit, nothing has actually changed in your branch on the server.  Other team members who may also be working in this branch wont be impacted, etc.  The Merge is purely a client-side operation until you perform a Commit. In a more real-world scenario, you may have conflicts.  When you do, youll be presented with a dialog like this one: Its up to you which option you want to go with.  The more frequently you Merge, the fewer of these youll have to deal with.  Also, be very sure that youre merging the right folders together.  If you try and merge your trunk with some subfolder in your branchs structure, youll end up with all kinds of conflicts and problems.  Fortunately, theyre only on your working copy (unless you commit them!) but if you see something like that, be sure to doublecheck your URL and your local file location. Merge Your Branch Back Into Trunk When youre done working in your branch, its time to pull it back into the trunk.  The first thing you should do is follow the previous steps instructions for merging the latest from the trunk into your branch.  This lets you ensure that what you have in your branch works correctly with the current trunk.  Once youve done that and committed your changes to your branch, youre ready to proceed with this step. Once youre confident your branch is good to go, you should go to its root folder and select TortoiseSVN->Merge (as above) from the explorer right-click menu.  This time, select Reintegrate a branch as shown below: Click Next.  Youll want it to merge with the trunk, which should be the default: Click Next. Leave the default settings: Click Test merge to see a test, and then if all looks good, click Merge.  Note that if you havent checked in your working copy changes, youll see something like this: If on the other hand things are successful: After this step, its likely you are finished working in your branch.  Dont forget to use the ToroiseSVN->Switch command to change your working copy back to the trunk. Delete the Branch You dont have to delete the branch, but over time your branches area of your repository will get cluttered, and in any event if theyre not actively being worked on the branches are just taking up space and adding to later confusion.  Keeping your branches limited to things youre actively working on is simply a good habit to get into, just like making sure your codebase itself remains tidy and not filled with old commented out bits of code. To delete the branch after youre finished with it, the simplest thing to do is choose TortoiseSVN->Repo Browser.  From there, assuming you did this from your branch, it should already be highlighted.  In any event, navigate to your branch in the treeview on the left, and then right-click and select Delete.  Enter a log message if youd like: Click OK, and its gone.  Dont be too afraid of this, though.  You can still get to the files by viewing the log for branches, and selecting a previous revision (anything before the delete action): If for some reason you needed something that was previously in this branch, you could easily get back to any changeset you checked in, so you should have absolutely no fear when it comes to deleting branches youre done with.   Resources If youre using Eclipse, theres a nice write-up of the steps required by Zach Cox that I found helpful here. Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Strange if-else branching behavior in a fragment shader

    - by Winged
    In my fragment shader I have passed an uniform int uLightType variable, which indicates what type of light is in usage right now. The problem is that if-else branching does not work correctly - the fragment shader performs instructions in every if statement block. if (uLightType == 1) { // Spotlight light type vec3 depthTextureCoord = vDepthPosition.xyz / vDepthPosition.w; shadowDepth = unpack(texture2D(uDepthMapSampler, depthTextureCoord.xy)); } else if (uLightType == 2) { // Omni-directional light type shadowDepth = unpack(textureCube(uDepthCubemapSampler, -lightVec)); } In the case when uLightType equals 1, unless I comment out the content of the second if block, it assigns an another value to shadowDepth. Also while uLightType equals 1, when I remove the second 'if' block and change == to != like in the sample code below, nothing happens (which means that uLightType really equals 1). if (uLightType != 1) { // Spotlight light type vec3 depthTextureCoord = vDepthPosition.xyz / vDepthPosition.w; shadowDepth = unpack(texture2D(uDepthMapSampler, depthTextureCoord.xy)); } Also, when I manually create an int variable (which is not an uniform) like this: var lightType = 1; and replace uLightType with it in the if-else branch, everything works fine, so I guess it have something to do with the fact that uLightType is the uniform.

    Read the article

  • Component-wise GLSL vector branching

    - by Gustavo Maciel
    I'm aware that it usually is a BAD idea to operate separately on GLSL vec's components separately. For example: //use instrinsic functions, they do the calculation on 4 components at a time. float dot = v1.x*v2.x + v1.y * v2.y + v1.z * v2.z; //NEVER float dot = dot(v1, v2); //YES //Multiply one by one is not good too, since the ALU can do the 4 components at a time too. vec3 mul = vec3(v1.x * v2.x, v1.y * v2.y, v1.z * v2.z); //NEVER vec3 mul = v1 * v2; I've been struggling thinking, are there equivalent operations for branching? For example: vec4 Overlay(vec4 v1, vec4 v2, vec4 opacity) { bvec4 less = lessThan(v1, vec4(0.5)); vec4 blend; for(int i = 0; i < 4; ++i) { if(less[i]) blend[i] = 2.0 * v1[i]*v2[i]; else blend[i] = 1.0 - 2.0 * (1.0 - v1[i])*(1.0 - v2[i]); } return v1 + (blend-v1)*opacity; } This is a Overlay operator that works component wise. I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it, since I'm afraid these for and if can be a bottleneck later. Tl;dr, Can I branch component wise? If yes, how can I optimize that Overlay function with it?

    Read the article

  • Community Branching

    - by Dane Morgridge
    As some may have noticed, I have taken a liking to Ruby (and Rails in particular) quite a bit recently. This last weekend I spoke at the NYC Code Camp on a comparison of ASP.NET and Rails as well as an intro to Entity Framework talk.  I am speaking at RubyNation in April and have submitted to other ruby conferences around the area and I am also doing a Rails and MongoDB talk at the Philly Code Camp in April. Before you start to think this is my "I'm leaving .NET post", which it isn't so I need to clarify. I am not, nor do I intend to any time in the near future plan on abandoning .NET.  I am simply branching out into another community based on a development technology that I very much enjoy.  If you look at my twitter bio, you will see that I am into Entity Framework, Ruby on Rails, C++ and ASP.NET MVC, and not necessarily in that order.  I know you're probably thinking to your self that I am crazy, which is probably true on several levels (especially the C++ part). I was actually crazy enough at the NYC Code Camp to show up wearing a Linux t-shirt, presenting with my MacBook Pro on Entity Framework, ASP.NET MVC and Rails. (I did get pelted in the head with candy by Rachel Appel for it though) At all of the code camps I am submitting to this year, i will be submitting sessions on likely all four topics, and some sessions will be a combination of 2 or more.  For example, my "ASP.NET MVC: A Gateway To Rails?" talk touches ASP.NET MVC, Entity Framework Code First and Rails. Simply put (and I talk about this in my MVC & Rails talk) is that learning and using Rails has made me a better ASP.NET MVC developer. Just one example of this is helper methods.  When I started working with ASP.NET MVC, I didn't really want to use helpers and preferred to just use standard html tags, especially where links were concerned.  It was just me being stubborn and not really seeing all of the benefit of the helpers.  To my defense, coming from WebForms, I wanted to be as bare metal as possible and it seemed at first like a lot of the helpers were an unnecessary abstraction. I took my first look at Rails back in v1 and didn't spend very much time with it so I dismissed it and went on my merry ASP.NET WebForms way.  Then I picked up ASP.NET MVC and grasped the MVC pattern itself much better. After this, I took another look at Rails and everything made sense.  I decided then to learn Rails. (I think it is important for developers to learn new languages and platforms regularly so it was a natural progression for me) I wanted to learn it the right way, so when I dug into code, everyone used helpers everywhere for pretty much everything possible. I took some time to dig in and found out how helpful they were and subsequently realized how awesome they were in ASP.NET MVC also and started using them. In short, I love Rails (and Ruby in general).  I also love ASP.NET MVC and Entity Framework and yes I still love C++.  I have varying degrees of love for them individually at any given moment and it is likely to shift based on the current project I am working on.  I know you're thinking it so before you ask the question. "Which do I use when?", I'm going to give the standard developer answer of: It depends.  There are a lot of factors that I am not going to even go into that would go into a decision.  The most basic question I would ask though is,  does this project depend on .NET?  If it does, then I'd say that ASP.NET MVC is probably going to be the more logical choice and I am going to leave it at that.  I am working on projects right now in both technologies and I don't see that changing anytime soon (one project even uses both). With all that being said, you'll find me at code camps, conferences and user groups presenting on .NET, Ruby or both, writing about .NET and Ruby and I will likely be blogging on both in the future.  I know of others that have successfully branched out to other communities and with any luck I'll be successful at it too. On a (sorta) side note, I read a post by Justin Etheredge the other day that pretty much sums up my feelings about Ruby as a language.  I highly recommend checking it out: What Is So Great About Ruby?

    Read the article

  • TFS: Branching. How to map a branch to IIS for local test

    - by DarkJackO
    Hi, I think there's something I don't understand about Branching How can I run my website from localhost to test my changes made on a Branch Let's say my branch structure is -Dev -UI -App Main -UI -App The project UI and App from the main are map in my IIS, it's all working well Now I want to make some changes in the UI project from Dev branch, and I want to test these changes before I merge them to Main Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is the standard or best way to deal with database branching with Mercurial or Git branches?

    - by Chad Johnson
    This has been a big question mark on my mind. I'm moving to Mercurial or Git very soon for my web software, and sometimes my branches require significant database changes which other branches should not see. This, I can't always share the same database for my branches. Is there some standard way of dealing with database changes for branching and cloning? What do you all do? I'm using MySQL.

    Read the article

  • Best practice with branching source code and application lifecycle

    - by Toni Frankola
    We are a small ISV shop and we usually ship a new version of our products every month. We use Subversion as our code repository and Visual Studio 2010 as our IDE. I am aware a lot of people are advocating Mercurial and other distributed source control systems but at this point I do not see how we could benefit from these, but I might be wrong. Our main problem is how to keep branches and main trunk in sync. Here is how we do things today: Release new version (automatically create a tag in Subversion) Continue working on the main trunk that will be released next month And the cycle repeats every month and works perfectly. The problem arises when an urgent service release needs to be released. We cannot release it from the main trunk (2) as it is under heavy development and it is not stable enough to be released urgently. In such case we do the following: Create a branch from the tag we created in step (1) Bug fix Test and release Push the change back to main trunk (if applicable) Our biggest problem is merging these two (branch with main). In most cases we cannot rely on automatic merging because e.g.: a lot of changes has been made to main trunk merging complex files (like Visual Studio XML files etc.) does not work very well another developer / team made changes you do not understand and you cannot just merge it So what you think is the best practice to keep these two different versions (branch and main) in sync. What do you do?

    Read the article

  • Which online form builders offer conditional logic/branching?

    - by Hari Sundararajan
    I have a survey with the following form fields: Country Age Male/Female Undergraduate/Graduate Question? Yes No If No, what about this and that? Yes No Google Forms and SurveyMonkey don't seem to allow things like the above. For question one I could ask, "What country are you from?" with a textbox as an answer section and work around it. But how do I go about creating questions five and six? I am not able to figure out how to do it except for having one more question that says "If your answer to the previous question was No, then blah blah (else skip this question)". Any suggestions, apart from creating my own custom website with JavaScript and a backend database?

    Read the article

  • DX11 - Weird shader behavior with and without branching

    - by Martin Perry
    I have found problem in my shader code, which I dont´t know how to solve. I want to rewrite this code without "ifs" tmp = evaluate and result is 0 or 1 (nothing else) if (tmp == 1) val = X1; if (tmp == 0) val = X2; I rewite it this way, but this piece of code doesn ´t word correctly tmp = evaluate and result is 0 or 1 (nothing else) val = tmp * X1 val = !tmp * X2 However if I change it to: tmp = evaluate and result is 0 or 1 (nothing else) val = tmp * X1 if (!tmp) val = !tmp * X2 It works fine... but it is useless because of "if", which need to be eliminated I honestly don´t understand it Posted Image . I tried compilation with NO and FULL optimalization, result is same

    Read the article

  • Does Dreamweaver subversion support branching?

    - by John Isaacks
    Adobe Dreamweaver added support for subversion in CS4. I have CS5, I am able to update and commit, they even have a very easy rollback option where you can promote any revision number to "head" but I cannot figure out anyway to branch using it. According to Adobe their subversion support is not full featured. But I cannot find any resource that stats what all is supported. So is branching one of the things not supported? (I kind of feel like whats the point without branching?) If you can do it, how?

    Read the article

  • What guidelines should be followed when using an unstable/testing/stable branching scheme?

    - by Elliot
    My team is currently using feature branches while doing development. For each user story in our sprint, we create a branch and work it in isolation. Hence, according to Martin Fowler, we practice Continuous Building, not Continuous Integration. I am interested in promoting an unstable/testing/stable scheme, similar to that of Debian, so that code is promoted from unstable = testing = stable. Our definition of done, I'd recommend, is when unit tests pass (TDD always), minimal documentation is complete, automated functional tests pass, and feature has been demo'd and accepted by PO. Once accepted by the PO, the story will be merged into the testing branch. Our test developers spend most of their time in this branch banging on the software and continuously running our automated tests. This scares me, however, because commits from another incomplete story may now make it into the testing branch. Perhaps I'm missing something because this seems like an undesired consequence. So, if moving to a code promotion strategy to solve our problems with feature branches, what strategy/guidelines do you recommend? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Branching Strategies

    - by Craig H
    The company I work for is starting to have issues with their current branching model, and I was wondering what different kinds of branching strategies the community has been exposed to? Are there any good ones for different situations? What does your company use? What are the advantages and disadvantages of them?

    Read the article

  • SVN: Working with branches using the same working copy

    - by uXuf
    We've just moved to SVN from CVS. We have a small team and everyone checks in code on the trunk and we have never ever used branches for development. We each have directories on a remote dev server with the codebase checked out. Each developer works on their own sandbox with an associated URL to pull up the app in a browser (something like the setup here: Trade-offs of local vs remote development workflows for a web development team). I've decided that for my current project, I'll use a branch because it would span multiple releases. I've already cut a branch out, but I am using the same directory as the one originally checked out (i.e. for the trunk). Since it's the same directory (or working copy) for both the branch and the trunk, if for e.g. a bug pops up in the app I switch to the trunk and commit the change there, and then switch back to my branch for my project development. My questions are: Is this a sane way to work with branches? Are there any pitfalls that I need to be aware of? What would be the optimal way to work with branches if separate working copies are out of the question? I haven't had issues yet as I have just started doing this way but all the tutorials/books/blog posts I have seen about branching with SVN imply working with different working copies (or perhaps I haven't come across an explanation of mixed working copies in plain English). I just don't want to be sorry three months down the road when its time to integrate the branch back to the trunk.

    Read the article

  • Finish feature reverted commits from develop

    - by marco-fiset
    I am using git as a version control system, and using git-flow as the branching model. I started a feature branch some weeks ago in order to maintain the system in a clean state while developping that feature. The main development continued on the develop branch, and changes from develop were merged periodically into the feature, to keep it up to date as much as possible. However came the time where the feature was finished, and I used git-flow's finish feature to merge the feature back into develop. The merge was successfully done, but then I found out that some of the commits I made in develop were reverted by the merge commit! Nowhere in develop or in the feature branch were these changes reverted, I can't see any commit that overwrote them. I just can't find anything. The only theory I have for the moment is that git is failing on me, but that would be extremely unlikely. Maybe I did some kind of wrong manipulation that made this situation come true? I can trace back in the history when the commit was made. I can see that the changes from that commit were reverted by the merge commit. Nowhere in the branch I see a commit that reverts those changes. Yet they were reverted. How is this even possible?

    Read the article

  • Git repo: Unravelling my mess into tidy branches

    - by Martin
    I wanted to play with a project, so git cloned it and, following its instructions, created a local branch for my configuration (I guess so that users can merge updates back). At first I was just tweaking to suit my preferences, so I didn't bother with any further branching, but now I have some code that might be useful to someone else, but with my passwords, etc in the same branch. Effectively, I have one big branch from which I'd like to have: Postgres backend (default) but with some new code I've added MySQL backend (the biggest change I've made) with that same new code My settings: I can't git ignore the settings file because I occasionally have to add sections for new functionality, but I need to keep my personal settings out of the public branches! I guess this would work best as a local-only branch. Dev branches, which I would branch from the MySQL. Starting from scratch, I think I could figure out how to branch/merge the various updates, but is there an easy way to walk through the existing repo and choose which commits to apply to which branch? Or possibly create a branch from a point upstream then merge back, excluding certain commits?

    Read the article

  • Develop in trunk and then branch off, or in release branch and then merge back?

    - by Torben Gundtofte-Bruun
    Say that we've decided on following a "release-based" branching strategy, so we'll have a branch for each release, and we can add maintenance updates as sub-branches from those. Does it matter whether we: develop and stabilize a new release in the trunk and then "save" that state in a new release branch; or first create that release branch and only merge into the trunk when the branch is stable? I find the former to be easier to deal with (less merging necessary), especially when we don't develop on multiple upcoming releases at the same time. Under normal circumstances we would all be working on the trunk, and only work on released branches if there are bugs to fix. What is the trunk actually used for in the latter approach? It seems to be almost obsolete, because I could create a future release branch based on the most recent released branch rather than from the trunk. Details based on comment below: Our product consists of a base platform and a number of modules on top; each is developed and even distributed separately from each other. Most team members work on several of these areas, so there's partial overlap between people. We generally work only on 1 future release and not at all on existing releases. One or two might work on a bugfix for an existing release for short periods of time. Our work isn't compiled and it's a mix of Unix shell scripts, XML configuration files, SQL packages, and more -- so there's no way to have push-button builds that can be tested. That's done manually, which is a bit laborious. A release cycle is typically half a year or more for the base platform; often 1 month for the modules.

    Read the article

  • Advice Needed: Developers blocked by waiting on code to merge from another branch using GitFlow

    - by fogwolf
    Our team just made the switch from FogBugz & Kiln/Mercurial to Jira & Stash/Git. We are using the Git Flow model for branching, adding subtask branches off of feature branches (relating to Jira subtasks of Jira features). We are using Stash to assign a reviewer when we create a pull request to merge back into the parent branch (usually develop but for subtasks back into the feature branch). The problem we're finding is that even with the best planning and breakdown of feature cases, when multiple developers are working together on the same feature, say on the front-end and back-end, if they are working on interdependent code that is in separate branches one developer ends up blocking the other. We've tried pulling between each others' branches as we develop. We've also tried creating local integration branches each developer can pull from multiple branches to test the integration as they develop. Finally, and this seems to work possibly the best for us so far, though with a bit more overhead, we have tried creating an integration branch off of the feature branch right off the bat. When a subtask branch (off of the feature branch) is ready for a pull request and code review, we also manually merge those change sets into this feature integration branch. Then all interested developers are able to pull from that integration branch into other dependent subtask branches. This prevents anyone from waiting for any branch they are dependent upon to pass code review. I know this isn't necessarily a Git issue - it has to do with working on interdependent code in multiple branches, mixed with our own work process and culture. If we didn't have the strict code-review policy for develop (true integration branch) then developer 1 could merge to develop for developer 2 to pull from. Another complication is that we are also required to do some preliminary testing as part of the code review process before handing the feature off to QA.This means that even if front-end developer 1 is pulling directly from back-end developer 2's branch as they go, if back-end developer 2 finishes and his/her pull request is sitting in code review for a week, then front-end developer 2 technically can't create his pull request/code review because his/her code reviewer can't test because back-end developer 2's code hasn't been merged into develop yet. Bottom line is we're finding ourselves in a much more serial rather than parallel approach in these instance, depending on which route we go, and would like to find a process to use to avoid this. Last thing I'll mention is we realize by sharing code across branches that haven't been code reviewed and finalized yet we are in essence using the beta code of others. To a certain extent I don't think we can avoid that and are willing to accept that to a degree. Anyway, any ideas, input, etc... greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • What git branching models actually work - the final question

    - by UncleCJ
    In our company we have successfully deployed git and we are currently using a simple trunk/release/hotfixes branching model. However, this has it's problems, I have some key issues of confusion in the community which would be awesome to have answered here. Maybe my hopes for an Alexander stroke are too great, quite possibly I'll decompose this question into more manageable issues, but here's my first shot. Workflows / branching models - below are the three main descriptions of this I have seen, but they are partially contradicting each other or don't go far enough to sort out the subsequent issues we've run into (as described below). Thus our team so far defaults to not so great solutions. Are you doing something better? gitworkflows(7) Manual Page (nvie) A successful Git branching model (reinh) A Git Workflow for Agile Teams Merging vs rebasing (tangled vs sequential history) - the bids on this are as confusing as it gets. Should one pull --rebase or wait with merging back to the mainline until your task is finished? Personally I lean towards merging since this preserves a visual illustration of on which base a task was started and finished, and I even prefer merge --no-ff for this purpose. It has other drawbacks however. Also many haven't realized the useful property of merging - that it isn't commutative (merging a topic branch into master does not mean merging master into the topic branch). I am looking for a natural workflow - sometimes mistakes happen because our procedures don't capture a specific situation with simple rules. For example a fix needed for earlier releases should of course be based sufficiently downstream to be possible to merge upstream into all branches necessary (is the usage of these terms clear enough?). However it happens that a fix makes it into the master before the developer realizes it should have been placed further downstream, and if that is already pushed (even worse, merged or something based on it) then the option remaining is cherry-picking, with it's associated perils... What simple rules like such do you use? Also in this is included the awkwardness of one topic branch necessarily excluding other topic branches (assuming they are branched from a common baseline). Developers don't want to finish a feature to start another one feeling like the code they just wrote is not there anymore How to avoid creating merge conflicts (due to cherry-pick)? What seems like a sure way to create a merge conflict is to cherry-pick between branches, they can never be merged again? Would applying the same commit in revert (how to do this?) in either branch possibly solve this situation? This is one reason I do not dare to push for a largely merge-based workflow. How to decompose into topical branches? - We realize that it would be awesome to assemble a finished integration from topic branches, but often work by our developers is not clearly defined (sometimes as simple as "poking around") and if some code has already gone into a "misc" topic, it can not be taken out of there again, according to the question above? How do you work with defining/approving/graduating/releasing your topic branches? Proper procedures like code review and graduating would of course be lovely, but we simply cannot keep things untangled enough to manage this - any suggestions? integration branches, illustration please? Vote and comment as much as you'd like, I'll try to keep the issue page clear and informative enough. Thanks! Below is a list of related topics on stackoverflow I have checked out: What are some good strategies to allow deployed applications to be hotfixable? Workflow description for git usage for in-house development Git workflow for corporate Linux kernel development How do you maintain development code and production code? (thanks for this PDF!) git releases management Git Cherry-pick vs Merge Workflow How to cherry-pick multiple commits How do you merge selective files with git-merge? How to cherry pick a range of commits and merge into another branch ReinH Git Workflow git workflow for making modifications you’ll never push back to origin Cherry-pick a merge Proper Git workflow for combined OS and Private code? Maintaining Project with Git Why cant Git merge file changes with a modified parent/master. Git branching / rebasing good practices When will "git pull --rebase" get me in to trouble?

    Read the article

  • Mercurial Branching Model for task features

    - by Stan
    My development env: Windows 7, TortoiseHg, ASP.NET 4.0/MVC3 Test branch: code on test server Prod branch: code on production server This is my current branching model. The reason to branch out every task (feature) is because some features go to live slower. So in above graph, task 1 finished earlier (changeset #5), and merge into test branch for testing. However, due to bug or modification of original request, changesets #10, #12 have been made. While task 2 has finished testing #8 and pushed to live #9 already. My problem is every time when modifying task branch (like #10, #12), I have to do another merge to test branch (#11, #13), this makes the graph very messy. Is there any way to solve this issue? Or any better branching model?

    Read the article

  • What's the best version control/QA workflow for a legacy system?

    - by John Cromartie
    I am struggling to find a good balance with our development and testing process. We use Git right now, and I am convinced that ReinH's Git Workflow For Agile Teams is not just great for capital-A Agile, but for pretty much any team on DVCS. That's what I've tried to implement but it's just not catching. We have a large legacy system with a complex environment, hundreds of outstanding and undiscovered defects, and no real good way to set up a test environment with realistic data. It's also hard to release updates without disrupting users. Most of all, it's hard to do thorough QA with this process... and we need thorough testing with this legacy system. I feel like we can't really pull off anything as slick as the Git workflow outlined in the link. What's the way to do it?

    Read the article

  • To branch or not to branch?

    - by Idsa
    Till recently my development workflow was the following: Get the feature from product owner Make a branch (if feature is more than 1 day) Implement it in a branch Merge changes from main branch to my branch (to reduce conflicts during backward merging) Merge my branch back to main branch Sometimes there were problems with merging, but in general I liked it. But recently I see more and more followers of idea to not make branches as it makes more difficult to practice continuous integration, continuous delivery, etc. And it sounds especially funny from people with distributed VCS background who were talking so much about great merging implementations of Git, Mercurial, etc. So the question is should we use branches nowadays?

    Read the article

  • How do you avoid working on the wrong branch?

    - by henginy
    Being careful is usually enough to prevent problems, but sometimes I need to double check the branch I'm working on (e.g. "hmm... I'm in the dev branch, right?") by checking the source control path of a random file. In looking for an easier way, I thought of naming the solution files accordingly (e.g. MySolution_Dev.sln) but with different file names in each branch, I can't merge the solution files. It's not that big of a deal but are there any methods or "small tricks" you use to quickly ensure you're in the correct branch? I'm using Visual Studio 2010 with TFS 2008.

    Read the article

  • How to refactor when all your development is on branches?

    - by Mark
    At my company, all of our development (bug fixes and new features) is done on separate branches. When it's complete, we send it off to QA who tests it on that branch, and when they give us the green light, we merge it into our main branch. This could take anywhere between a day and a year. If we try to squeeze any refactoring in on a branch, we don't know how long it will be "out" for, so it can cause many conflicts when it's merged back in. For example, let's say I want to rename a function because the feature I'm working on is making heavy use of this function, and I found that it's name doesn't really fit its purpose (again, this is just an example). So I go around and find every usage of this function, and rename them all to its new name, and everything works perfectly, so I send it off to QA. Meanwhile, new development is happening, and my renamed function doesn't exist on any of the branches that are being forked off main. When my issue gets merged back in, they're all going to break. Is there any way of dealing with this? It's not like management will ever approve a refactor-only issue so it has to be squeezed in with other work. It can't be developed directly on main because all changes have to go through QA and no one wants to be the jerk that broke main so that he could do a little bit of non-essential refactoring.

    Read the article

  • Is it a good practice to use branches to maintain different editions of the same software?

    - by Tamás Szelei
    We have a product that has a few different editions. The differences are minor: different strings here and there, very little additional logic in one, very little difference in logic in the other. When the software is being developed, most changes need to be added to each edition; however, there are a few that don't and a few that needs to differ. Is it a valid use of branches if I have release-editionA and release-editionB (..etc) branches? Are there any gotchas? Good practices? Update: Thanks for the insight everyone, lots of good answers here. The general consensus seems to be that it is a bad idea to use branches for this purpose. For anyone wondering, my final solution to the problem is to externalize strings as configuration, and externalize the differing logic as plugins or scripts.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >