Search Results

Search found 179 results on 8 pages for 'dvcs'.

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

Page 2/8 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

  • How suitable is a DVCS for the corporate environment?

    - by Matt Brailsford
    I've been using SVN for some time now, and am pretty happy with how it works (but I can't say I'm an expert, and I haven't really done much with branches and merging). However an opportunity has arisen to put in some new practises on a new team and so I thought I'd take a look at DVCSs to see if it's worth making the jump. The company I work for is a pretty standard company where we all work in the same location (or sometimes at home) and we want to keep a central store of all code. My question is: if all you are doing with a DVCS is creating a central hub that everyone pushes their changes to, is there really any benefit to moving to a DVCS and its extra overheads in this sort of environment?

    Read the article

  • We're Subversion Geeks and we want to know the benefits of Mercurial

    - by Matt
    Having read I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS. I have a related follow up question. I read that question and read the recommended links and videos and I see the benefits but I don't see the overall mindshift people are talking about. Our team is of 8-10 developers that work on one large code base consisting of 60 projects. We use Subversion and have a main trunk. When a developer starts a new Fogbugz case they create a svn branch, do the work on the branch and when they're done they merge back to the trunk. Occasionally they may stay on the branch for an extended time and merge the trunk to the branch to pick up the changes. When I watched Linus talk about people creating a branch and never doing it again, that's not us at all. We create probably 50-100 branches a week without issue. The biggest challenge is the merging but we've gotten pretty good at that as well. I tend to merge by fogbugz case & checkin rather than the entire root of the branch. We never work remotely and we never make branches off of branches. If you're the only one working in that section of the code base then the merge to the trunk goes smoothly. If someone else had modified the same section of code then the merge can get messy and you might need to do some surgery. Conflicts are conflicts, I don't see how any system could get it right most of the time unless if was smart enough to understand the code. After creating a branch the following checkout of 60k+ files takes some time but that would be an issue with any source control system we'd use. Is there some benefit of any DVCS that we're not seeing that would be of great help to us?

    Read the article

  • Which DVCS would work best on Windows for my scenario?

    - by PoorLuzer
    At work I use ClearCase and SourceSafe, but have found some time to do some time to code for myself enroute thanks to a disposable laptop. However, I wish I had a lightweight VCS on my system using which I would be able to make changes to my code during the commute and then push/grab them from my Linux systems. I use git on my home system, but I can't really get it working on Windows. I don't want all that cygwin hack. If it does not run natively on Windows, it just won't do. What have you guys tried on your Windows system? Something that YOU use. The big player at the moment seems to be Mercurial? What would be best for a one (or maybe two) man team? I just need to maintain : Versioned copies of source code. Checking in and out should be as less obtrusive as possible. I am looking forward to a multiple Undo kind of feature (like that in an EMacs buffer) but persistent. I really like the way git keeps track of lines moving between files in a source code set I should be able to move part(s)/sub tree(s) of the source tree (each sub tree implies a module/plugin to my the main software I am building) to an archival system either completly or partially and restore them back from the archive as and when required and the system should track any changes to this tree as well. I actually want to experiment with my code as much as possible without me manually keeping track of what I modified and what I need to undo once I try out some idea, so that I am back to where I want to continue from. Notes : A similar topic came up a year ago : http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4670/dvcs-choices-whats-good-for-windows I hope things have changed, and I really want people to share their own, real life experiences. Not something they recommend without using it or they think will work.

    Read the article

  • Things I've noticed with DVCS

    - by Wes McClure
    Things I encourage: Frequent local commits This way you don't have to be bothered by changes others are making to the central repository while working on a handful of related tasks.  It's a good idea to try to work on one task at a time and commit all changes at partitioned stopping points.  A local commit doesn't have to build, just FYI, so a stopping point doesn't mean a build point nor a point that you can push centrally.  There should be several of these in any given day.  2 hours is a good indicator that you might not be leveraging the power of frequent local commits.  Once you have verified a set of changes works, save them away, otherwise run the risk of introducing bugs into it when working on the next task.  The notion of a task By task I mean a related set of changes that can be completed in a few hours or less.  In the same token don’t make your tasks so small that critically related changes aren’t grouped together.  Use your intuition and the rest of these principles and I think you will find what is comfortable for you. Partial commits Sometimes one task explodes or unknowingly encompasses other tasks, at this point, try to get to a stopping point on part of the work you are doing and commit it so you can get that out of the way to focus on the remainder.  This will often entail committing part of the work and continuing on the rest. Outstanding changes as a guide If you don't commit often it might mean you are not leveraging your version control history to help guide your work.  It's a great way to see what has changed and might be causing problems.  The longer you wait, the more that has changed and the harder it is to test/debug what your changes are doing! This is a reason why I am so picky about my VCS tools on the client side and why I talk a lot about the quality of a diff tool and the ability to integrate that with a simple view of everything that has changed.  This is why I love using TortoiseHg and SmartGit: they show changed files, a diff (or two way diff with SmartGit) of the current selected file and a commit message all in one window that I keep maximized on one monitor at all times. Throw away / stash commits There is extreme value in being able to throw away a commit (or stash it) that is getting out of hand.  If you do not commit often you will have to isolate the work you want to commit from the work you want to throw away, which is wasted productivity and highly prone to errors.  I find myself doing this about once a week, especially when doing exploratory re-factoring.  It's much easier if I can just revert all outstanding changes. Sync with the central repository daily The rest of us depend on your changes.  Don't let them sit on your computer longer than they have to.  Waiting increases the chances of merge conflict which just decreases productivity.  It also prohibits us from doing deploys when people say they are done but have not merged centrally.  This should be done daily!  Find a way to partition the work you are doing so that you can sync at least once daily. Things I discourage: Lots of partial commits right at the end of a series of changes If you notice lots of partial commits at the end of a set of changes, it's likely because you weren't frequently committing, nor were you watching for the size of the task expanding beyond a single commit.  Chances are this cost you productivity if you use your outstanding changes as a guide, since you would have an ever growing list of changes. Committing single files Committing single files means you waited too long and no longer understand all the changes involved.  It may mean there were overlapping changes in single files that cannot be isolated.  In either case, go back to the suggestions above to avoid this.  Committing frequently does not mean committing frequently right at the end of a day's work. It should be spaced out over the course of several tasks, not all at the end in a 5 minute window.

    Read the article

  • Trac/SVN to DVCS Migration

    - by quanticle
    The project I'm currently working on is using Trac, with SVN integration. It's worked great until now. Now, however, we've taken on some additional developers and we're running into issues with branching and merging. Because of this, I think a move to a distributed version control system is in order. The problem is that Trac is very closely integrated with the SVN repository. We have tight integration between the tickets and the revision numbers of code changes corresponding to those tickets. In addition we have a support wiki that has a lot of data that helps the tech. support team. Is there a way we can migrate to git or mercurial without losing the benefits of Trac? I've looked at the git plugin for Trac, and I'm unsure of how well it works. Has anyone here used it with a project that's been migrated from SVN? EDIT: I should note that the most important priority for us is maintaining the links between Trac tickets and the corresponding changesets in SVN. That's a tool that we use every day, and it provides an easy way to jump to code changes when reviewing tickets. Wiki migration would be nice to have, but if it's not possible, we can continue to run the old system whilst we write some kind of a one-off script to migrate the content.

    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

  • Is Perforce as good at 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

  • Code review “on a napkin” — could it be useful?

    - by gaRex
    Preconditions Team uses DVCS IDE supports comments parsing (like TODO and etc.) Tools like CodeCollaborator are expensive for budget Tools like gerrit are too complex for install or not usable Workflow Author publishes somewhere on central repo feature branch Reviewer fetch it and start review In case of some question/issue reviewer create comment with special label, like "BLA". Such label MUST not be in production code -- only on review stage: $somevar = 123; // BLA Why do echo this here? echo $somevar; When reviewer finish post comments -- it just commits with stupid message "comments" and pushes back Author pulls feature branch back and answer comments in similar way or improve code and push it back When "BLA" comments have gone we can think, that review has successfully finished. Author interactively rebases feature branch, stashes it to remove those "comment" commits and now is ready to merge feature to develop or make any action that usualy could be after successful internal review IDE support I know, that custom comment tags are possible in eclipse & netbeans. Sure it also should be in blablaStorm family. So my specific questions are Do you think this methodology is viable? Do you know something similar? What can be improved in it? ps: migrated from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12692695/code-review-on-a-napkin-could-it-be-useful

    Read the article

  • Is a code review which uses only code comments a good idea?

    - by gaRex
    Preconditions Team uses DVCS IDE supports comments parsing (like TODO and etc.) Tools like CodeCollaborator are expensive for budget Tools like gerrit are too complex for install or not usable Workflow Author publishes somewhere on central repo feature branch Reviewer fetch it and start review In case of some question/issue reviewer create comment with special label, like "REV". Such label MUST not be in production code -- only on review stage: $somevar = 123; // REV Why do echo this here? echo $somevar; When reviewer finish post comments -- it just commits with stupid message "comments" and pushes back Author pulls feature branch back and answer comments in similar way or improve code and push it back When "REV" comments have gone we can think, that review has successfully finished. Author interactively rebases feature branch, squashes it to remove those "comment" commits and now is ready to merge feature to develop or make any action that usualy could be after successful internal review IDE support I know, that custom comment tags are possible in eclipse & netbeans. Sure it also should be in blablaStorm family. Questions Do you think this methodology is viable? Do you know something similar? What can be improved in it?

    Read the article

  • Is a "model" branch a common practice?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I just thought it could be a good thing to have a dedicated version control branch for all database schema changes and I wanted to know if anyone else is doing the same and what have the results been. Say that you are working with: Schema model/documentation (some file where you model the database visually to generate the schema source, say MySQL Workbench, with a .mwb file, which is binary) Schema source (a .sql file) Schema-based code generation The normal way we were working was with feature branches, so we would do changes to the model files (the database specific ones), and then have to regenerate points 2 and 3, dealing with the possible conflicts (or even code rewriting). Now say that your workflow goes the same way as the previous item numbering. With a model branch you wouldn't have to reconcile the schema model with binaries in other feature branches, or have to regenerate schema source and regenerate code (which might have human code on top of it). It makes so much sense to me it feels weird not having seen this earlier as a common practice. Edit: I'm counting on branch merges to be the assertions for the model matching the code. I use a DVCS, so I don't fear long-lived branches or scary-looking merges. I'm also doing feature branching.

    Read the article

  • How should I manage "reverting" a branch done with bookmarks in mercurial?

    - by Earlz
    I have an open source project on bitbucket. Recently, I've been working on an experimental branch which I (for whatever reason) didn't make an actual branch for. Instead what I did was use bookmarks. So I made two bookmarks at the same revision test --the new code I worked on that should now be abandoned(due to an experiment failure) main -- the stable old code that works I worked in test. I also pushed from test to my server, which ended up switching the tip tag to the new unstable code, when I really would've rather it stayed at main. I "switched" back to the main bookmark by doing a hg update main and then committing an insignificant change. So, I pushed this with hg push -f and now my source control is "correct" on the server. I know that there should be a cleaner way to "switch" branches. What should I do in the future for this kind of operation?

    Read the article

  • Integrating different branches from external sources into a single Mercurial repository

    - by dukeofgaming
    I'm currently working in a company using Perforce and am making way for distributed version control with Mercurial. I've had success importing Perforce history using the perfarce (quite a suitable name, I laugh every time I see/say it) however, this only works with a single branch at a time. Here's how my P4 integration setup works: In perforce, create a "client", which is kind of a description of what you will be constantly updating/checking-out. This can only address one branch at a time (trunk or other). Once you do this, run hg clone p4://<server>/<client_name> Go to .hg/hgrc and put the perforce path line: perforce = p4://<server>/<client_name> Work normally with the code under mercurial, do hg pull perforce to sync up, hg push to export a changelist What I'd like to be able to do is have a perforce path per branch and have everything work in the same repository. Now, pushing is not a problem, however, if I pull the history from another branch it would end up at the default branch. I'd like to be able to do something like hg pull perforce-R5 and have it land in mercurial's R5 branch. Even if I have no merging history, it would be sweet enough to be able to preserve it. There are also other plugins for CVCSs that let you integrate mercurial, but AFAIK the subversion one has the same problem. I don't think there is a straight-through way of doing this, but as long as I could automate the process with some hooks and scripts in a single Mercurial machine, that would be good enough.

    Read the article

  • Why should i write a commit message?

    - by acidzombie24
    Why should i write a commit message? I dont want to and i think its stupid every single time. A gui frontend i use which will go unnamed forces you to do it. I hear other doing it everytime even if they are using the VCS on the command line. If i commit several times a day and havent finish a feature what am i writing about? I ONLY ever write a message after many comments and i feel its time for a mini tag or when i do an actual tag. Am i right or am i missing something? also i am using a distributed system

    Read the article

  • Didatic approaches to teach versioning with Git

    - by Herberth Amaral
    I have already taught versioning with Git, but I think it could be more enjoyable for the guys I teach if I use another approach to teach them. The guys I mentioned before were used to working with SVN and I tried to teach Git based on SVN. Not such a good idea. It seems that some guys/teams which use SVN need a re-education on version control when they're learning Git or another DCVCS. In another attempt, I tried to show a scenario where a development team try to work without a (D)VCS and then I showed how their lives could be easier if they used a (D)VCS. I had the impression that part of the audience left the presentation without a clue what I was talking about. I've taught other classes on other subjects without problems, so I think this is not a issue with me as a teacher, but with my method. I know Git and versioning as well I know the other subjects I've presented to the other classes. So, basically, how to teach Git/DCVCS? Start with some diffs/patches and manual versioning and then teach how it can be more productive with Git? Start with Git object model? Or try to start with some pretty commands and try to save some time? To be clear: I'm looking for approaches on how to teach DCVCS (focusing on Git) effectively, based on real experiences.

    Read the article

  • Can DVCSs enforce a specific workflow?

    - by dukeofgaming
    So, I have this little debate at work where some of my colleagues (which are actually in charge of administrating our Perforce instance) say that workflows are strictly a process thing, and that the tools that we use (in this case, the version control system) have no take on it. In otherwords, the point that they make is that workflows (and their execution) are tool-agnostic. My take on this is that DVCSs are better at encouraging people in more flexible and well-defined ways, because of the inherent branching occurring in the background (anonymous branches), and that you can enforce workflows through the deployment model you establish (e.g. pull requests through repository management, dictator/liutenant roles with their machines setup as servers, etc.) I think in CVCSs you have to enforce workflows through policies and policing, because there is only one way to share the code, while in DVCSs you just go with the flow based on the infrastructure/permissions that were setup for you. Even when I have provided the earlier arguments, I'm still unable to fully convince them. Am I saying something the wrong way?, if not, what other arguments or examples do you think would be useful to convince them? Edit: The main workflow we have been focusing on, because it makes sense to both sides is the Dictator/Lieutenants workflow: My argument for this particular workflow is that there is no pipeline in a CVCS (because there is just sharing work in a centralized way), whereas there is an actual pipeline in DVCSs depending on how you deploy read/write permissions. Their argument is that this workflow can be done through branching, and while they do this in some projects (due to policy/policing) in other projects they forbid developers from creating branches.

    Read the article

  • Is version history really sacred or is it better to rebase?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I've always agreed with Mercurial's mantra, however, now that Mercurial comes bundled with the rebase extension and it is a popular practice in git, I'm wondering if it could really be regarded as a "bad practice", or at least bad enough to avoid using. In any case, I'm aware of rebasing being dangerous after pushing. OTOH, I see the point of trying to package 5 commits in a single one to make it look niftier (specially at in a production branch), however, personally I think would be better to be able to see partial commits to a feature where some experimentation is done, even if it is not as nifty, but seeing something like "Tried to do it way X but it is not as optimal as Y after all, doing it Z taking Y as base" would IMHO have good value to those studying the codebase and follow the developers train of thought. My very opinionated (as in dumb, visceral, biased) point of view is that programmers like rebase to hide mistakes... and I don't think this is good for the project at all. So my question is: have you really found valuable to have such "organic commits" (i.e. untampered history) in practice?, or conversely, do you prefer to run into nifty well-packed commits and disregard the programmers' experimentation process?; whichever one you chose, why does that work for you? (having other team members to keep history, or alternatively, rebasing it).

    Read the article

  • Handling (many) multiple projects in Git in an enterprise environment

    - by Michael K
    One of the advantages of older version control systems such as CVS and SVN in enterprise development is that anyone can connect to source control and see all the projects that the company has. This can make it easier to get a high level view of what kid of development is happening outside your sprint and also keeps everything in one place and easy to find. However, distributed version control systems (Git, specifically) use the repository as their base unit. They work best with one project (or several closely related projects) per repository. This makes repository management more difficult in most enterprise environments where it is not unusual to have more than 25-50 projects to support. As far as I have been able to determine, you have to keep a list somewhere else of all the repos you have. There is software available, like GitHub, that help, but that still is an extra step beyond a single connection string and listing the contents of the repository. What is the best way to deal with the complexity of multiple repositories?

    Read the article

  • Are there any reasons to use Bazaar over Hg or Git?

    - by NeuronQ
    The world of DVCSs seems split between Git and Mercurial nowadays, but lots of projects and places (like my new employer) use Bazaar. And it's not a thing of inertia where people just use something because "that's how it's always been done", these guys are agile and sometimes seem to embrace change just for the fun of having more things to fix. Yet no one gave me any convincing arguments for using Bzr over Hg or Git. I can get seeing Git as "too complicated" but you can't use this king of judgement between Hg and Bzr. So then, what are the features of Bazaar that would justify its use over Mercurial (or Git) in any given situation?

    Read the article

  • Working with Git on multiple machines

    - by Tesserex
    This may sound a bit strange, but I'm wondering about a good way to work in Git from multiple machines networked together in some way. It looks to me like I have two options, and I can see benefits on both sides: Use git itself for sharing, each machine has its own repo and you have to fetch between them. You can work on either machine even if the other is offline. This by itself is pretty big I think. Use one repo that is shared over the network between machines. No need to do git pulls every time you switch machines, since your code is always up to date. Never worry that you forgot to push code from your other non-hosting machine, which is now out of reach, since you were working off a fileshare on this machine. My intuition says that everyone generally goes with the first option. But the downside I see is that you might not always be able to access code from your other machines, and I certainly don't want to push all my WIP branches to github at the end of every day. I also don't want to have to leave my computers on all the time so I can fetch from them directly. Lastly a minor point is that all the git commands to keep multiple branches up to date can get tedious. Is there a third handle on this situation? Maybe some third party tools are available that help make this process easier? If you deal with this situation regularly, what do you suggest?

    Read the article

  • To keep my own versioned app or not.

    - by Esteban Feldman
    Hi all. I need some opinions here. I'm working on a Django project using buildout to get the dependencies, etc... I use mercurial as DVCS. Now... I need to customize one of the dependencies, so I can do one of the following: (* The changes may not be useful for everyone else.) 1- Do a fork of the project in (github, bitbucket, etc...) maintain my version, and get the dependency with (mercurial or git) recipe. 2- Clone the project, put it in the PYTHONPATH, erase DVCS dirs and add it to my projects version. So every change will be private. Here I need to erase all the info from their DVCS or something. Any other you can think of. I'm missing something? I'm too off? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • DVCS with a Windows central repository

    - by Mikko Rantanen
    We are currently using VSS for version control. Quite few of our developers are interested in a distributed model (And want to get rid of VSS). Our network is full of Windows machines and while our IT department has experience maintaining Linux machines they would prefer not to. What DVCS systems can host their central repository on Windows while providing.. Push access to the repository. Basic authentication. Mostly just a way to allow or deny access to the whole repository. No need for fine grained access. Server process so users don't need write right to the repository reducing the risk of accidentally messing with it. On the client side a GUI such as Tortoise would be more or less a requirement (Sorry, Windows shell sucks. :|). Ease of installation would be a huge plus as our IT department is already quite low on resources. And using windows credentials for authentication would be an advantage but not a requirement as long as the client is able to store the credentials. I have had a (really) quick look at Git, Mercurial and Bazaar. Git seemed to use ssh or simple WebDAV for repository access, requiring write permission for the users. Mercurial had a built in http server, but this seemed to be only for pull purposes. Update: Mercurial supports push as well. Bazaar Seemed to use sftp for repository access, again requiring a write permission for the users. Are there windows server processes for any DVCS systems and has anyone managed to set one up in a Windows land? And apologies if this is a duplicate question. I couldn't find one. Update Got Mercurial working for push purposes! Detailed list what was required can be found as an answer below.

    Read the article

  • Do Distributed Version Control Systems promote poor backup habits?

    - by John
    In a DVCS, each developer has an entire repository on their workstation, to which they can commit all their changes. Then they can merge their repo with someone else's, or clone it, or whatever (as I understand it, I'm not a DVCS user). To me that flags a side-effect, of being more vulnerable to forgetting to backup. In a traditional centralised system, both you as a developer and the people in charge know that if you commit something, it's held on a central server which can have decent backup solutions in place. But using a DVCS, it seems you only have to push your work to a server when you feel like sharing it. It's all very well you have the repo locally so you can work on your feature branch for a month without bothering anyone, but it means (I think) that checking in your code to the repo is not enough, you have to remember to do regular pushes to a backed-up server. It also means, doesn't it, that a team lead can't see all those nice SVN commit emails to keep a rough idea what's going on in the code-base? Is any of this a real issue?

    Read the article

  • Git and Mercurial - Compare and Contrast

    - by TM
    For a while now I've been using subversion for my personal projects. More and more I keep hearing great things about Git and Mercurial, and DVCS in general. I'd like to give the whole DVCS thing a whirl, but I'm not too familiar with either option. What are some of the differences between Mercurial and Git? Note that I'm not trying to find out which one is "best" or even which one I should start with. I'm mainly looking for key areas where they are similar and where they are different, because I am interested to know how they differ in terms of implementation and philosophy.

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >