Search Results

Search found 988 results on 40 pages for 'branching and merging'.

Page 2/40 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Mercurial branching a branch doesn't display right in hg serve or hg view

    - by Mystic
    I've been doing some development on a branch and realized that before it could be complete something else need to be done first. I decided that I would branch my current branch and do the requiste changes in that branch then merge them back together and then merge my working branch into default. Basically I expected this: | | + requiste work branch commit. | |/ | + working branch commit |/ +Default branch commit and in the end what I expect to do is this: + Merge into defualt |\ | + Merge requisite work into working branch | | \ | | + requiste work branch commit. | |/ | + working branch commit |/ +Default branch commit What I'm getting in both hg view and hg serve is this: | + requiste work branch commit. | | | + working branch commit |/ +Default branch commit However, when I look at the commit log "requiste work branch commit" is marked as a part of a different branch. Am I doing something wrong? Is this a bug in hg view and hg serve? Anyone experienced this before?

    Read the article

  • git checkout master/branching question

    - by danwoods
    Hello all, I 'm relatively new to git and and having some problems early on. I've made several commits, but when I try to push them I get a response that says everything is up-to-date. I feel like my problem is the same on listed in this question, but it recommends the following: $ git log -1 # note the SHA-1 of latest commit $ git checkout master # reset your branch head to your previously detached commit $ git reset --hard <commit-id> What exactly will "checking out the master" do? I just don't want to lose the changes I've made... screenshot of gitk:

    Read the article

  • SourceSafe sharing and branching

    - by Melody Friedenthal
    So far I've only checked things out and back in to Source Safe but now I want to create a project for parallel development. That is, I want to Share and Branch the entire project. I have been reading the Source Safe Help files on how to do this and although I think I am following the instructions, I end up with an empty folder. Can someone enumerate the steps required to do this? Do you start by creating a new project under the Source Safe root so you have something to Share the original project with? Note: We have SourceSafe 6.0.

    Read the article

  • Mercurial Branching Oddity

    - by Steve Horn
    I'm trying to understand why the below is occuring: It appears that I have started another branch, but it has no name, and I do not remember creating a new branch. Why did this new head(branch) get created? How do I keep it from happening?

    Read the article

  • Git: Fixing a bug affecting two branches

    - by Aram Kocharyan
    I'm basing my Git repo on http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ and was wondering what happens if you have this situation: Say I'm developing on two feature branches A and B, and B requires code from A. The X node introduces an error in feature A which affects branch B, but this is not detected at node Y where feature A and B were merged and testing was conducted before branching out again and working on the next iteration. As a result, the bug is found at node Z by the people working on feature B. At this stage it's decided that a bugfix is needed. This fix should be applied to both features, since the people working on feature A also need the bug fixed, since its part of their feature. Should a bugfix branch be created from the latest feature A node (the one branching from node Y) and then merged with feature A? After which both features are merged into develop again and tested before branching out? The problem with this is that it requires both branches to merge to fix the issue. Since feature B doesn't touch code in feature A, is there a way to change the history at node Y by implementing the fix and still allowing the feature B branch to remain unmerged yet have the fixed code from feature A? Mildly related: Git bug branching convention

    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

  • Merging two folders using git

    - by vrish88
    I'm working on a project with some people who have never used git before. Not knowing the capabilities of git, they created two version of the project: development and production. These two versions are both present in the current environment. To complicate things further, this other user created these folders in addition to the old development folder. So the project directory looks like this /root /proj (old dev folder with my own code in it) /dev_proj (new folder which I would like to merge /prod with) /prod_proj (production code) So what I'd like to do is merge the work that I've done in /proj with the work in the /dev_proj. Is there a way to do this with git? I've thought about creating a branch, copying all the files from /proj to /dev_proj and merging that branch with master. Would this work? Thanks and if I could clarify something let me know.

    Read the article

  • TFS How does merging work?

    - by Johannes Rudolph
    I have a release branch (RB, starting at C5) and a changeset on trunk (C10) that I now want to merge onto RB. The file has changes at C3 (common to both), one in CS 7 on RB, and one in C9 (trunk) and one in C10). So the history for my changed file looks like this: RB: C5 -> C7 Trunk: C3 -> C9 -> C10 When I merge C10 from trunk to RB, I'd expect to see a merge window showing me C10 | C3 | C7 since C3 is the common ancestor revision and C10 and C7 are the tips of my two branches respectively. However, my merge tool shows me C10 | C9 | C7. My merge tool is configured to show %1(OriginalFile)|%3(BaseFile)|%2(Modified File), so this tells me TFS chose C9 as the base revision. This is totally unexpected and completely contrary to the way I'm used to merges working in Mercurial or Git. Did I get something wrong or is TFS trying to drive me nuts with merging? Is this the default TFS Merge behavior? If so, can you provide insight into why they chose to implement it this way? I'm using TFS 2008 with VS2010 as a Client.

    Read the article

  • Advantages of three-way automatic merging vs. two-way

    - by bnsmith
    I'm interested in understanding two-way and three-way merging of source code files. Based on what I've read, two-way merging has some "crippling weaknesses" compared to three-way merging. What I'd really like to see are one or two simple, concrete examples of cases where three-way merging is able to automatically merge something from a branch to the trunk without producing conflicts, while two-way merging falls down and requires a bunch of manual intervention to get the code merged. Any links to blog posts or even references to books would be appreciated (yes, I have Googled this for an hour or so). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • 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

  • What's so difficult about SVN merges? [closed]

    - by Mason Wheeler
    Possible Duplicate: I’m a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS? Every once in a while, you hear someone saying that distributed version control (Git, HG) is inherently better than centralized version control (like SVN) because merging is difficult and painful in SVN. The thing is, I've never had any trouble with merging in SVN, and since you only ever hear that claim being made by DVCS advocates, and not by actual SVN users, it tends to remind me of those obnoxious commercials on TV where they try to sell you something you don't need by having bumbling actors pretend that the thing you already have and works just fine is incredibly difficult to use. And the use case that's invariably brought up is re-merging a branch, which again reminds me of those strawman product advertisements; if you know what you're doing, you shouldn't (and shouldn't ever have to) re-merge a branch in the first place. (Of course it's difficult to do when you're doing something fundamentally wrong and silly!) So, discounting the ridiculous strawman use case, what is there in SVN merging that is inherently more difficult than merging in a DVCS system?

    Read the article

  • Merging two templates in iText

    - by Shaggy Frog
    Let's say I have two PDF templates created with Adobe Acrobat, which are both single-page, 8.5x11 documents. The first template (A.pdf) has content for the top half of the page. The second template (B.pdf) has content for the bottom half of the page. (It just so happens the content in both templates does not "overlap" each other.) I would like to use iText to take these two templates and create a single, "merged" template from it (C.pdf) that is only a single page (with A.pdf's content on the top half and B.pdf's content on the bottom half). (I do not want to "merge" these two files into a 2-page document. I need the final product to be a single page.) I will be running iText in a servlet environment (Tomcat 6) but I don't think that makes a difference to the answer. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • SVN Source control issues when merging changes

    - by HollyStyles
    I have seen where changes have been made on one code file by two developers code like this: x++ End up like this: x++ x++ where due to carriage returns being inserted/removed (I think) one line has become silently merged as two lines of the same code (no conflicts) Everything compiles but suddenly tests are failing and weird behaviour ensues. Should this be possible? How do I guard against it?

    Read the article

  • Merging some sorted lists with unknown order sequence

    - by Gabriel
    I've some sorted lists with variable number of elements. I wold like to merge the lists into one big list which contains all other lists in same order, without duplicates. Example: 1. XS,M,L,XL 2. S,M,XXL 3. XXS,XS,S,L Result: XXS,XS,S,M,L,XL,XXL The function should notify, if there are elements which have ambiguous positions. Here, it would be XXL and I need to specify its position after XL.

    Read the article

  • merging selected revisions from one branch on another in Mercurial

    - by Assaf Lavie
    Is it possible to merge a range of revisions from one branch to another in Mercurial? e.g. |r1 |r2 |r3 |\___ | | r5 | | r6 | | r7 | | ... | | r40 |r41 If I want to merge revisions 6 & 7, but not 5, into the main branch - is this possible? What about multiple selected revision ranges from branch A to branch B? e.g. merge 4-7, 20-25 and 30-34? (this isn't a real case, just an illustration. I'm trying to understand if hg has this revision-range merge feature that I know svn has)

    Read the article

  • Beginner question about merging in git

    - by wxyz
    I'm 15 and have just started using source control systems to manage my code a little better, so I'm a little new to this stuff. Right now I have this repository: [a]---[b]---[d]---[f] master \ \ [c]---[e] develop I want to wind up here: [a]---[b]---[d]---[f]---[g] master \ / \ / [c]---[e]---/ develop where g is equivalent to performing commits [c] and [e] on [f]. This is git checkout master; git merge develop, right?

    Read the article

  • Branching and Merging with TortoiseSVN

    - by capgpilk
    For this example I am using Visual Studio 2010, TortoiseSVN 1.6.6, Subversion 1.6.6 and AnkhSVN 2.1.7819.411, so if you are using different versions, some of these screen shots may differ. This is assuming you have your code checked in to the trunk directory and have a standard SVN structure of trunk, branches and tags. There are a number of developers who prefer to develop solely in a branch and never touch the trunk, but the process is generally the same and you may be on a small team and prefer to work in the trunk and branch occasionally. There are three steps to successful branching. First you branch, then when you are ready you need to reintegrate any changes that other developers may have made to the trunk in to your branch. Then finally when your branch and the trunk are in sync, you merge it back in to the trunk. Branch Right click project root in Windows Explorer > TortoiseSVN > Branch/Tag Enter the branch label in the ‘To URL’ box. For example /branches/1.1 Choose Head revision Check Switch working copy Click OK Make any changes to branch Make any changes to trunk Commit any changes For this example I copied the project to another location prior to branching and made changes to that using Notepad++. Then committed it to SVN, as this directory is mapped to the trunk, that is what gets updated.   Merge Trunk with Branch Right click project root in Windows Explorer > TortoiseSVN > Merge Choose ‘Merge a range of revisions’ In ‘URL to merge from’ choose your trunk Click Next, then the ‘test merge’ button. This will highlight any conflicts. Here we have one conflict we will need to resolve because we made a change and checked in to trunk earlier Click merge. Now we have the opportunity to edit that conflict This will open up TortoiseMerge which will allow us to resolve the issue. In this case I want both changes. Perform an Update then Commit Reloading in Visual Studio shows we have all changes that have been made to both trunk and branch. Merge Branch with Trunk Switch working copy by right clicking project root in Windows Explorer > TortoiseSVN > switch Switch to the trunk then ok Right click project root in Windows Explorer > TortoiseSVN > merge Choose ‘Reintegrate a branch’ In ‘From URL’ choose your branch then next Click ‘Test merge’, this shouldn’t show any conflicts Click Merge Perform Update then Commit Open project in Visual Studio, we now have all changes. So there we have it we are connected back to the trunk and have all the updates merged.

    Read the article

  • Git - switching between branches in the middle of work

    - by Art
    For various reasons (code review mostly) I need to switch from current development branch to other branches quite often. Currently, I use either 'git stash' to shelve the uncommitted changes, checkout other branch, then switch back and do 'git stash apply' However, sometimes I'd have some newly added files there, which are not tracked. Unfortunately, stashing does not affect them. In this case I'd have to add them to the index and stash. What I am looking here for is a workflow where I'd have to perform a minimal set of actions to switch the branches, preferably avoiding adding of files into the index.

    Read the article

  • Branching and Merging Improvements in TFS2010

    - by jehan
    Introducing the concept of “first class branches” is a significant improvement as part of the 2010 release with respect to version control.  Not only does it help to distinguish between folders and branches, but it enables branch visualizations. Let us see improvements in detail. ·         In TFS2008, you don’t know which of the folders are Branches: All folders looks the same, all have the folder icon. Now, In TFS 2010 there is a new icon that shows which of the folder is a Branch.       ·      There is no visual means to manage branches in TFS2008:   You dont have any means to identify which branches are related and the relation type. Now, In TFS 2010 you have visual tools to see the Branches Hierarchy. In order to see a Branch Hierarchy just Right Click the Branch and choose: Branching and Merging –> View Hierarchy     ·         In TFS2008, there is no option to track changes path between the Branches:  If you have made a merge in a Branch you can’t track from which Branch this Merge came from. Now, you have the tools that shows the path of change between the Branches, you can also see where change was added on a timeline.  In order to track a change do the following: Step1: Right click the Branch and click View History   Step 2: Choose a changeset to track and click the “Track Changeset” button.     Step 3: Choose the branches that will be in the view and click “Visualize”. In above visual, you can see that Changesets 108,109,110 and 119 where merged from Main to Release1.0 Branch and then “Release_1.0” Branched to “Dev1.0. Step4: You can also see the Merges on a Timeline by clicking on the “Timeline Tracking” button.   Creating New Branches: In TFS 2010, the creation of branches has been streamlined a bit from the process in 2008.  In 2008, creating a new branch was like every other action in the system – changes were pended on the client, and then checked in to the server. Because of this creating new branch in TFS2008 was time-consuming process.  In TFS2010, the step where changes are pended has been bypassed and now performing the branch creation is entirely on the server.  With this approach, the round trip time for downloading a copy of each file on the branch and then uploading each file again has been eliminated.  Note: In TFS2010, the new branch will be created and committed as a single operation on the server. Pending changes will not be created, it doesn’t require a check-in as it will be carried out as a single operation and it’s not possible to cancel.     Manage Branch Permissions: The properties view for branches is also different than that of ordinary folders or file, containing some metadata for the branch, relationship information, and permissions for the branch. In TFS2008, the users who have checkout and Check-in permissions can create a branch. But, In TFS2010 you can control the permissions for Branches using Manage Branch permissions.   Reparent option in TFS2010: In TFS2008, if we have two branches which don’t have parent-child relation and we want perform merge between these two branches then we have to perform baseless merge using tf.exe command line. I have two branches Release_1.0 and Dev1.0_F2 which don’t have any relation between them, that’s why when I click on merge option in Release_1.0, in Target Branch it’s not showing Dev1.0_F2 branch to perform the merges.     Let us see what can we do for this in TFS2010, first perform a TFS baseless merge to establish a relationship between the parent branch and the child branches.  It will only merge the folder, not its contents. TFS baseless merges are performed via the command line using VS2010 command prompt and do the following:   tf merge /baseless <ParentBranch> <childBranch> Check in your pending changes. It will create the link between the branches but the relationships are still not completed.  Now, select the child branch in Source Control Explorer and from the File menu choose Source Control –> Branching and Merging –> Reparent.      In the dialog box,  choose the appropriate branch as the new parent.   Click Reparent and then go to parent branch and click merge. Now, will see that in Target Branch option Dev1.0_F2 branch is added.         Converting Folders to Branches and Branches to Folders: You can convert any Folder as Branch from Context Menu by performing right click on the folderàBranching and MergingàConvert to Branch. In similar way, you can convert the Branches to Folder using Convert to Folder option available in File Menu (FileàSource ControlàBranching and MergingàConvert to Branch). This option is not available in context menu.

    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

  • 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

  • How and/or Why is Merging in GIT Better than in SVN?

    - by John
    I've heard a few places that one of the main ways distributed version control systems shine, is much better merging than traditional tools like SVN. Is this actually due to inherent differences in how the two systems work, or do specific DVCS implementations like GIT/Mercurial just have cleverer merging algorithms than SVN?

    Read the article

  • Is Perforce as good as merging as DVCSs?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I've heard that Perforce is very good at merging, I'm guessing this has to do with that it tracks changes in the form of changelists where you can add differences across several files in a single blow. I think this implies Perforce gathers more metadata and therefore has more information to do smarter merging (at least smarter than Subversion, being Perforce centralized). Since this is similar to how Mercurial and Git handle changes (I know DVCSs track content rather than files), I was wondering if somebody knew what were the subtle differences that makes Perforce better or worse than a DVCS like Mercurial or Git.

    Read the article

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