Search Results

Search found 1748 results on 70 pages for 'branch prediction'.

Page 20/70 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • Subversion merging, tree merge

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Version control: delete branches after merging?

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • "Hiding" things in GIT

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • HKLM\SYSTEM\WPA key list changed!!

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Creating Dynamic variables from json response

    - by c0mrade
    My JSON response looks like this : {"sample":[{"id":"2","name":"branch name"},{"id":"3","name":"branch name 2"}]} My function looks like this : function getJSONObjects(){ $.getJSON("http://localhost/api/branches", function(data){ $.each(data.sample, function(i,item){ var loc = "branch"; eval("var " + loc + item.id + "=123;"); alert(loc + item.id); }); }); } The idea is to create branch + id object so I can do something with it(create marker on a map), so I tried to assign it any value to see if this was working. I wanted both branch2 and branch3 to alert 123 so I have something to start with. But currently this alerts branch2 and branch3 instead of 123. I have little experience with creating dynamic variables/objects can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong or maybe another approach towards solving this?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • TFS 2010 Source Branches Never The Same

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

    Read the article

  • What is branched in a repository?

    - by Peter M
    Ok I hope that this will end up sounding like a reasonable question. From what I understand of subversion if you have a repo that contains multiple projects, then you can branch individual projects within that repo (see SVN Red book - Using Branches) However what I don't quite follow is what happens when you create a branch in one of the distributed systems (Git, Hg, Bazaar - I don't think it matters which one). Can you branch just a sub-directory of the repo, or when you create the branch are you branching the entire repo? This question is part of a larger one that I posted on superuser (choice and setup of version control) and has come about as I am trying to figure out how to best version control a large hierarchal layout of independent projects. It may be that for distributed systems that what I would like to do is best handled by a sub-project mechanism of some sort - but again that is something I am not clear on although I have heard the term mentioned in regards to git.

    Read the article

  • Merging branches in tortoiseHg does not seem to work

    - by Spock
    In a project, I have a default branch and another named branch. After a merging both branches and committing it, the graph in TortoiseHg shows that both branches have been merged. However, pushing to a remote repository (which is at the stage before branching, it only has the default branch), I get the message "abort: push creates new remote branches". If I'm not mistaken, I'm left with one branch after merging, so why this error message? Note: the graph still shows that I have 2 heads, is it in anyway related to this?

    Read the article

  • Git: Is there a way to figure out where a commit was cherry-pick'ed from?

    - by EricSchaefer
    If I cherry-pick from multiple branches, is there a simple way to figure out where the commit was coming from (e.g. the sha of the original commit)? Example: - at master branch - cherry pick commit A from a dev branch - A becomes D at the master branch Before: * B (master) Feature Y | * C (dev) Feature Z | * A Feature X |/ * 3 * 2 * 1 After: * D (master) Feature X * B Feature Y | * C (dev) Feature Z | * A Feature X |/ * 3 * 2 * 1 Is it possible to figure out that B was cherry-picked from A (aside from searching for the commit message)?

    Read the article

  • Erlang Types Specifications

    - by Chang
    I recently read the source code of couch-db, I find this type definition which i don't understand: -type branch() :: {Key::term(), Value::term(), Tree::term()}. -type path() :: {Start::pos_integer(), branch()}. -type tree() :: [branch()]. I did read Erlang doc, But what is the meaning of Start, Key, Value and Tree? From what i understand, they are Erlang variables! I didn't find any information about this in Erlang doc.

    Read the article

  • Using a regex pattern to find revision numbers from a svn merge

    - by zyzy
    svn diff -rXX:HEAD Will give me a format like this, if there has been a merge between those revisions: Merged /<branch>:rXXX,XXX-XXX or Merged /<branch>:rXXX I'm not very familiar with regex and am trying to put together a pattern which will match all the numbers (merged revision numbers) AFTER matching the "Merged /branch:r" part. So far I have this to match the first part: [Mm]erged.*[a-zA-Z]:r Thanks in adv. for the help :)

    Read the article

  • Tracking SVN changes through multiple merges

    - by Paul D.
    At work we use a branching strategy where all changes start off in a development branch, then subsequently make their way through one or more integration branches, and finally end up in a release branch. Occasionally (more often than I'd like) I find myself needing to figure out where a particular change originated (which development branch). In this case I have to spend a considerable amount of time playing detective to trace a change backwards through 2-3 merges. Am I missing an easy way to do this?

    Read the article

  • DVCS - What's the downside of rewriting unpublished history?

    - by user1447278
    I was wondering what in particular is the downside of "losing history" in a development process. One famous example is of course git rebase -i / git merge --squash, but also what is described here: http://fourkitchens.com/blog/2009/04/20/alternatives-rebasing-bazaar under "I want to clean up my commit history prior to submitting my changes to the mainline." I can see that exporting patches and applying them to another branch would lose the "history" of the branch, but why would that branch and its commit history be useful after it has been merged? Can someone elaborate on why such techniques are considered "dirty"? Why does it matter in which order changes were originally committed in the first place as long as they can be applied to the main branch?

    Read the article

  • Git Svn dcommit error - restart the commit

    - by Rob Wilkerson
    Last week, I made a number of changes to my local branch before leaving town for the weekend. This morning I wanted to dcommit all of those changes to the company's Svn repository, but I get a merge conflict in one file: Merge conflict during commit: Your file or directory 'build.properties.sample' is probably out-of-date: The version resource does not correspond to the resource within the transaction. Either the requested version resource is out of date (needs to be updated), or the requested version resource is newer than the transaction root (restart the commit). I'm not sure exactly why I'm getting this, but before attempting to dcommit, I did a git svn rebase. That "overwrote" my commits. To recover from that, I did a git reset --hard HEAD@{1}. Now my working copy seems to be where I expect it to be, but I have no idea how to get past the merge conflict; there's not actually any conflict to resolve that I can find. Any thoughts would be appreciated. EDIT: Just wanted to specify that I am working locally. I have a local branch for the trunk that references svn/trunk (the remote branch). All of my work was done on the local trunk: $ git branch maint-1.0.x master * trunk $ git branch -r svn/maintenance/my-project-1.0.0 svn/trunk Similarly, git log currently shows 10 commits on my local trunk since the last commit with a Svn ID. Hopefully that answers a few questions. Thanks again.

    Read the article

  • git merge, git rebase none seems to work, should I delete my github fork and refork from the upstream master?

    - by Joan Yin
    I have to confess my github sins. 4 month ago, I forked a upstream repo, without knowing much of git and pull request, i did some work on master branch locally, later on I realized the mistake, created a new branch, and squashed the changes to one and successfully send a PR later from that branch. the PR is accepted, and I moved on. Now I need to submit another PR. But my master branch is so messed up, when I do merge, or rebase, there are so many mistakes. I probably committed a few more sins this morning. I have been battling this for the whole morning now. so it comes to the point that I want a clean start. Can I delete the github fork and refork from the upstream master? What are the correct steps?

    Read the article

  • Copying subversion commit messages

    - by Falcor
    I know this isn't the BEST practice, but every once in a while when I'm merging up a huge batch up changes with the trunk (and I know my branch is current), I will simply delete the contents of the trunk and then copy the contents of my branch up, so that I don't have to deal with resolving conflicts for an hour. The problem is that I seem to lose the entire history of commit messages for each file. My branch still has the correct history of commit messages... how can I merge them up?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >