Search Results

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

Page 24/70 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• Git subtree workflow

  - by Cedric

  In my current project I'm using an open source forum (https://github.com/vanillaforums/Garden.git). I was planning on doing something like this : git remote add vanilla_remote https://github.com/vanillaforums/Garden.git git checkout -b vanilla vanilla_remote/master git checkout master git read-tree --prefix=vanilla -u vanilla This way I can make change into the vanilla folder (like changing config) and commit it to my master branch and I can also switch into my vanilla branch to fetch updates. My problem is when I try to merge the branch together git checkout vanilla git pull git checkout master git merge --squash -s subtree --no-commit vanilla The problem is that the "update commit" goes on top of my commits and "overwrite" my change. I would rather like to have my commits replay on top of the update. Is there a simple way to do that? I'm not very good in git so maybe this is the wrong approach. Also, I really don't want to mix my history with the vanilla history.

  Read the article

• Subversion has --record-only for merges, how do I do the same in Git ?

  - by Paul Hammant

  I have a repo where 'master' is going in a certain direction, and a second branch 'foo' is going to be divergent for a couple of commits, then track all subsequent changes to 'master' after that. This is all by choice of course. In Subversion you could do a --record-only merge to mark things as "merge has happened" even though no actual changes were committed. i.e. this change the merge-tracking numbers in properties attached to directories in the target branch. I have had a play with.. git merge --no-commit master .. as something I may be able to tinker with before I do the commit, but it is making a hell of a mess of the target branch for part of the change in question (rename followed by delete). There must be an easier way.. ? Paul

  Read the article

• Redoing Commit History in GIT Without Rebase

  - by yar

  Since asking my last question which turned out to be about rebasing with GIT, I have decided that I don't want to rebase at all. Instead I want to: Branch Work work work, checking in and pushing at all times Throw out all of those commits and pretend they never happened (so one clean commit at the end of work) I do this currently by copying the files to a new directory and then copying them back in to a new branch (branched at the same point as my working branch), and then merging that into master or wherever. Is this just plain bad and why? More important: Is there a better/GIT way to do this? git rebase -i forces me to merge (and pick, and squash).

  Read the article

• Nicely printing/showing a binary tree in Haskell

  - by nicole

  I have a tree data type: data Tree a b = Branch b (Tree a b) (Tree a b) | Leaf a ...and I need to make it an instance of Show, without using deriving. I have found that nicely displaying a little branch with two leaves is easy: instance (Show a, Show b) => Show (Tree a b) where show (Leaf x) = show x show (Branch val l r) = " " ++ show val ++ "\n" ++ show l ++ " " ++ show r But how can I extend a nice structure to a tree of arbitrary size? It seems like determining the spacing would require me to know just how many leaves will be at the very bottom (or maybe just how many leaves there are in total) so that I can allocate all the space I need there and just work 'up.' I would probably need to call a size function. I can see this being workable, but is that making it harder than it is?

  Read the article

• Choosing Merge Direction

  - by tbreffni

  Consider a simple source-control layout, with a trunk representing a future release in development and a single branch representing a release currently in production. When a bug is discovered that needs fixed in both branches, should the change be made first to the trunk then merged down to the branch, or made first to the branch then merged up to the trunk? Typically I've made the fix first in the trunk then merged downwards, however there is an increased risk this way that future new features get merged down accidentally. What has worked best in your experience?

  Read the article

• SVN Merge returns nothing...

  - by Mike

  Here is the scenario: Windows Vista environment. SVN version 1.6.11. I'm on my branch directory. I want to update my branch with a particular change from my trunk. Using command line (using SlikSVN) I enter the following and it returns nothing (returns a blank line and no merge occurs): svn merge -r 11846:11891 http://trunk//AppConstants.java When I do the equivalent using Tortoise SVN, it says "Completed" but nothing gets merged either. When I do a svn diff I clearly see the differences I want to merge in from the trunk to my branch. The diff command I am using is svn diff -r 11846:11891 http://trunk//AppConstants.java. Can anyone figure why no merge occurs? Thanks!!!

  Read the article

• Manage groups of build configurations in Hudson

  - by Lóránt Pintér

  I'm using Hudson to build my application. I have several branches that come and go. Whenever there's a new branch, I have to set up the following builds for it: a continuous build that runs after every change in SVN a nightly build a nightly site generation (I'm using Maven under the hood) and a weekly integration build for some branches currently this means I need to copy four template configurations and set them up with the branch URL. I don't like this for two reasons: It's redundant, so modifying something is error-prone and takes a lot of time. I need four full checkouts of the product per branch on every build slave, plus four separate private Maven repository, not to mention the built artifacts. This is a lot of space wasted. What I'd like instead is to have one workspace and one configuration for allthese builds. Is this possible with Hudson?

  Read the article

• How to manage maintenance/bug-fix branches in Subversion when third-party installers are involved?

  - by Mike Spross

  We have a suite of related products written in VB6, with some C# and VB.NET projects, and all the source is kept in a single Subversion repository. We haven't been using branches in Subversion (although we do tag releases now), and simply do all development in trunk, creating new releases when the trunk is stable enough. This causes no end of grief when we release a new version, issues are found with it, and we have already begun working on new features or major changes to the trunk. In the past, we would address this in one of two ways, depending on the severity of the issues and how stable we thought the trunk was: Hurry to stabilize the trunk, fix the issues, and then release a maintenance update based on the HEAD revision, but this had the side effect of releases that fixed the bugs but introduced new issues because of half-finished features or bugfixes that were in trunk. Make customers wait until the next official release, which is usually a few months. We want to change our policies to better deal with this situation. I was considering creating a "maintenance branch" in Subversion whenever I tag an official release. Then, new development would continue in trunk, and I can periodically merge specific fixes from trunk into the maintenance branch, and create a maintenance release when enough fixes are accumulated, while we continue to work on the next major update in parallel. I know we could also have a more stable trunk and create a branch for new updates instead, but keeping current development in trunk seems simpler to me. The major problem is that while we can easily branch the source code from a release tag and recompile it to get the binaries for that release, I'm not sure how to handle the setup and installer projects. We use QSetup to create all of our setup programs, and right now when we need to modify a setup project, we just edit the project file in-place (all the setup projects and any dependencies that we don't compile ourselves are stored on a separate server, and we make sure to always compile the setup projects on that machine only). However, since we may add or remove files to the setup as our code changes, there is no guarantee that today's setup projects will work with yesterday's source code. I was going to put all the QSetup projects in Subversion to deal with this, but I see some problems with this approach. I want the creation of setup programs to be as automated as possible, and at the very least, I want a separate build machine where I can build the release that I want (grabbing the code from Subversion first), grab the setup project for that release from Subversion, recompile the setup, and then copy the setup to another place on the network for QA testing and eventual release to customers. However, when someone needs to change a setup project (to add a new dependency that trunk now requires or to make other changes), there is a problem. If they treat it like a source file and check it out on their own machine to edit it, they won't be able to add files to the project unless they first copy the files they need to add to the build machine (so they are available to other developers), then copy all the other dependencies from the build machine to their machine, making sure to match the folder structure exactly. The issue here is that QSetup uses absolute paths for any files added to a setup project. However, this means installing a bunch of setup dependencies onto development machines, which seems messy (and which could destabilize the development environment if someone accidentally runs the setup project on their machine). Also, how do we manage third-party dependencies? For example, if the current maintenance branch used MSXML 3.0 and the trunk now requires MSXML 4.0, we can't go back and create a maintenance release if we have already replaced the MSXML library on the build machine with the latest version (assuming both versions have the same filename). The only solution I can think is to either put all the third-party dependencies in Subversion along with the source code, or to make sure we put different library versions in separate folders (i.e. C:\Setup\Dependencies\MSXML\v3.0 and C:\Setup\Dependencies\MSXML\v4.0). Is one way "better" or more common than the other? Are there any best practices for dealing with this situation? Basically, if we release v2.0 of our software, we want to be able to release v2.0.1, v2.0.2, and v.2.0.3 while we work on v2.1, but the whole setup/installation project and setup dependency issue is making this more complicated than the the typical "just create a branch in Subversion and recompile as needed" answer.

  Read the article

• How do I add an SVN remote to a Git repository?

  - by Tom

  Hello! I recently used git-svn to clone an SVN repository, for the purposes of maintaining my own branch of an open-source project. I'm also working with others on this branch, so we use a shared Git repository to help with the collaboration. A colleague wishes to fetch new revisions from the original SVN repository. How might he accomplish this? I can simply run "git svn fetch" on my local machine, but seeing that my colleague has cloned from the shared Git repository, his local branch lacks the necessary SVN metadata for fetching. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Git - will the file moves be detected?

  - by Ben Aston

  I performed some modifications on a branch (A). I then decided to create a brand new branch (B) based on the state of my existing working copy and commit and push to that. There were a number of files that had been moved during my earlier refactoring, and hence were now not included in version control having been moved directly in the filesystem. By accident I did not add these files to git before committing and pushing to the new branch (B). If I now add these files and commit and push, will Git be able to detect the file move operations?

  Read the article

• What are the advantages of a rebase over a merge in git?

  - by eSKay

  In this article, the author explains rebasing with this diagram: Rebase: If you have not yet published your branch, or have clearly communicated that others should not base their work on it, you have an alternative. You can rebase your branch, where instead of merging, your commit is replaced by another commit with a different parent, and your branch is moved there. while a normal merge would have looked like this: So, if you rebase, you are just losing a history state (which would be garbage collected sometime in the future). So, why would someone want to do a rebase at all? What am I missing here?

  Read the article

• Is there a "dual user check-in" source control system?

  - by Zubair

  Are there any source control systems that require another user to validate the source code "before" it can be checked-in? I want to know as this is one technique to make sure that code quality is high. Update: There has been talk of "Branches" in the answers, and while I feel branches have there place I think that branchs are something different as when a developer's code is ready to go into the main branch it "should" be checked. Most often though I see that when this happens a lead developer or whoever is responsible for the merge into the main branch/stream just puts the code into the main branch as long as it "compiles" and does no more checks than that. I want the idea of two people putting their names to the code at an early stage so that it introduces some responsibility, and also because the code is cheaper to fix early on and is also fresh in the developers mind.

  Read the article

• git: better way for git revert without additional reverted commit

  - by Albert

  I have a commit in a remote+local branch and I want to throw that commit out of the history and put some of them into an own branch. Basically, right now I have: D---E---F---G master And I want: E---G topic / D master That should be both in my local and in the (there is only one, called origin) remote repository. Which is the cleanest way to get that? Also, there are also other people who have cloned that repo and who have checked out the master branch. If I would do such a change in the remote repo, would 'git pull' work for them to get also to the same state?

  Read the article

• Translate This git_parse_function to zsh?

  - by yar

  I am using this function in Bash function parse_git_branch { git_status="$(git status 2> /dev/null)" pattern="^# On branch ([^${IFS}]*)" if [[ ! ${git_status}} =~ "working directory clean" ]]; then state="*" fi # add an else if or two here if you want to get more specific if [[ ${git_status} =~ ${pattern} ]]; then branch=${BASH_REMATCH[1]} echo "(${branch}${state})" fi } but I'm determined to use zsh. While I can use this perfectly as a shell script (even without a shebang) in my .zshrc the error is a parse error on this line if [[ ! ${git_status}}... What do I need to do to get it ready for zshell? Note: I realize the answer could be "go learn zsh syntax," but I was hoping for a quick hand with this if it's not too difficult.

  Read the article

• How to prevent an automerge using git?

  - by marckassay

  I am trying to merge a local branch into the master branch without having Git to do an automerge. I would like to “hand pick” what I would like to be merged into master. When I use Git’s difftool command, I am able to diff and select what I want to be added into the master branch. But then when I do a merge, I will lose what I selected prior because Git will do an automerge. I can commit the changes into master prior to the merge, but doing so seems unnatural. And Git’s mergetool is only available when there are conflicts from a merge. But if Git does an automerge then usually there aren’t conflicts, so I am unable to run the mergetool command.

  Read the article

• The meaning of tracking in git

  - by user273158

  In an article that has been cited in StackOverflow a few times (e.g. 1) , the author discusses the asymmetry between git push and git pull, and mentions the following: Update: Thanks to David Ongaro, who points out below that since git 1.7.4.2, the recommended value for the push.default option is upstream rather than tracking, although tracking can still be used as a deprecated synonym. The commit message that describes that change is nice, since it suggests that there is an effort underway to deprecate the term “track” in the context of setting this association with the upstream branch in a remote repository. (The totally different meanings of “track” in git branch --track and “remote-tracking branches” has long irritated me when trying to introduce git to people.) What is exactly the difference that he is referring to with: The notion of "tracking" in git branch --track The notion of "tracking" in remote-tracking branches in the last sentence?

  Read the article

• Usage scenario for svn branches

  - by Paul Knopf

  I have a product that I distribute to my clients. Each client needs some UI customization. I want each client to be able to get updated with new version easily. Can I create a project in svn that serves as a "base project", and then create branches for each client? With that said, will I then be able to commit changes in a branch to the branch, with the option of pushing that change to the core? Can I also perform and "update" command in a branch that will only update changes to the core?

  Read the article

• Reorganising git commits into different branches

  - by user1425706

  I am trying to reorganise my git tree so that it is structured a bit better. Basically at the moment I have a single master branch with a couple of small feature branches that split from it. I want to go back and reorder it so that the only commits in the main branch are the ones corresponding to new version numbers and then have all the in between commits reside in a separate develop branch from which the feature branches split from too. Basically I'm looking for a tool that will let me completely manually reorganise the tree. I thought maybe that interactive rebasing was what I was looking for but trying to do so in sourcetree makes it seem like it is not the right tool. Can anyone give me some advice on how best to proceed. Below is a diagram of my current structure: featureA x-x-x / \ master A-x-x-x-x-B-x-x-x-C D Desired structure: feature x-x-x / | develop x-x-x-x-x-x-x - / | | | master A - B - C - D

  Read the article

• Examples of continuous integration workflow using git

  - by Andrew Barinov

  Can anyone provide a rough outline of their git workflow that complies with continuous integration. E.g. How do you branch? Do you fast forward commits to the master branch? I am primarily working with Rails as well as client and server side Javascript. If anyone can recommend a solid CI technology that's compatible with those, that'd be great. I've looked into Jenkins but would like to check out other good alternatives. To put some context into this, I am planning on transitioning from working as a single developer into working as part of the team. I'd like to start standardizing my own personal workflow so that I can onboard new devs quickly.

  Read the article

• Announcing: Great Improvements to Windows Azure Web Sites

  - by ScottGu

  I’m excited to announce some great improvements to the Windows Azure Web Sites capability we first introduced earlier this summer.  Today’s improvements include: a new low-cost shared mode scaling option, support for custom domains with shared and reserved mode web-sites using both CNAME and A-Records (the later enabling naked domains), continuous deployment support using both CodePlex and GitHub, and FastCGI extensibility.  All of these improvements are now live in production and available to start using immediately. New “Shared” Scaling Tier Windows Azure allows you to deploy and host up to 10 web-sites in a free, shared/multi-tenant hosting environment. You can start out developing and testing web sites at no cost using this free shared mode, and it supports the ability to run web sites that serve up to 165MB/day of content (5GB/month).  All of the capabilities we introduced in June with this free tier remain the same with today’s update. Starting with today’s release, you can now elastically scale up your web-site beyond this capability using a new low-cost “shared” option (which we are introducing today) as well as using a “reserved instance” option (which we’ve supported since June).  Scaling to either of these modes is easy.  Simply click on the “scale” tab of your web-site within the Windows Azure Portal, choose the scaling option you want to use with it, and then click the “save” button.  Changes take only seconds to apply and do not require any code to be changed, nor the app to be redeployed: Below are some more details on the new “shared” option, as well as the existing “reserved” option: Shared Mode With today’s release we are introducing a new low-cost “shared” scaling mode for Windows Azure Web Sites.  A web-site running in shared mode is deployed in a shared/multi-tenant hosting environment.  Unlike the free tier, though, a web-site in shared mode has no quotas/upper-limit around the amount of bandwidth it can serve.  The first 5 GB/month of bandwidth you serve with a shared web-site is free, and then you pay the standard “pay as you go” Windows Azure outbound bandwidth rate for outbound bandwidth above 5 GB. A web-site running in shared mode also now supports the ability to map multiple custom DNS domain names, using both CNAMEs and A-records, to it.  The new A-record support we are introducing with today’s release provides the ability for you to support “naked domains” with your web-sites (e.g. http://microsoft.com in addition to http://www.microsoft.com).  We will also in the future enable SNI based SSL as a built-in feature with shared mode web-sites (this functionality isn’t supported with today’s release – but will be coming later this year to both the shared and reserved tiers). You pay for a shared mode web-site using the standard “pay as you go” model that we support with other features of Windows Azure (meaning no up-front costs, and you pay only for the hours that the feature is enabled).  A web-site running in shared mode costs only 1.3 cents/hr during the preview (so on average $9.36/month). Reserved Instance Mode In addition to running sites in shared mode, we also support scaling them to run within a reserved instance mode.  When running in reserved instance mode your sites are guaranteed to run isolated within your own Small, Medium or Large VM (meaning no other customers run within it).  You can run any number of web-sites within a VM, and there are no quotas on CPU or memory limits. You can run your sites using either a single reserved instance VM, or scale up to have multiple instances of them (e.g. 2 medium sized VMs, etc).  Scaling up or down is easy – just select the “reserved” instance VM within the “scale” tab of the Windows Azure Portal, choose the VM size you want, the number of instances of it you want to run, and then click save.  Changes take effect in seconds: Unlike shared mode, there is no per-site cost when running in reserved mode.  Instead you pay only for the reserved instance VMs you use – and you can run any number of web-sites you want within them at no extra cost (e.g. you could run a single site within a reserved instance VM or 100 web-sites within it for the same cost).  Reserved instance VMs start at 8 cents/hr for a small reserved VM.  Elastic Scale-up/down Windows Azure Web Sites allows you to scale-up or down your capacity within seconds.  This allows you to deploy a site using the shared mode option to begin with, and then dynamically scale up to the reserved mode option only when you need to – without you having to change any code or redeploy your application. If your site traffic starts to drop off, you can scale back down the number of reserved instances you are using, or scale down to the shared mode tier – all within seconds and without having to change code, redeploy, or adjust DNS mappings.  You can also use the “Dashboard” view within the Windows Azure Portal to easily monitor your site’s load in real-time (it shows not only requests/sec and bandwidth but also stats like CPU and memory usage). Because of Windows Azure’s “pay as you go” pricing model, you only pay for the compute capacity you use in a given hour.  So if your site is running most of the month in shared mode (at 1.3 cents/hr), but there is a weekend when it gets really popular and you decide to scale it up into reserved mode to have it run in your own dedicated VM (at 8 cents/hr), you only have to pay the additional pennies/hr for the hours it is running in the reserved mode.  There is no upfront cost you need to pay to enable this, and once you scale back down to shared mode you return to the 1.3 cents/hr rate.  This makes it super flexible and cost effective. Improved Custom Domain Support Web sites running in either “shared” or “reserved” mode support the ability to associate custom host names to them (e.g. www.mysitename.com).  You can associate multiple custom domains to each Windows Azure Web Site.  With today’s release we are introducing support for A-Records (a big ask by many users). With the A-Record support, you can now associate ‘naked’ domains to your Windows Azure Web Sites – meaning instead of having to use www.mysitename.com you can instead just have mysitename.com (with no sub-name prefix).  Because you can map multiple domains to a single site, you can optionally enable both a www and naked domain for a site (and then use a URL rewrite rule/redirect to avoid SEO problems). We’ve also enhanced the UI for managing custom domains within the Windows Azure Portal as part of today’s release.  Clicking the “Manage Domains” button in the tray at the bottom of the portal now brings up custom UI that makes it easy to manage/configure them: As part of this update we’ve also made it significantly smoother/easier to validate ownership of custom domains, and made it easier to switch existing sites/domains to Windows Azure Web Sites with no downtime. Continuous Deployment Support with Git and CodePlex or GitHub One of the more popular features we released earlier this summer was support for publishing web sites directly to Windows Azure using source control systems like TFS and Git.  This provides a really powerful way to manage your application deployments using source control.  It is really easy to enable this from a website’s dashboard page: The TFS option we shipped earlier this summer provides a very rich continuous deployment solution that enables you to automate builds and run unit tests every time you check in your web-site, and then if they are successful automatically publish to Azure. With today’s release we are expanding our Git support to also enable continuous deployment scenarios and integrate with projects hosted on CodePlex and GitHub.  This support is enabled with all web-sites (including those using the “free” scaling mode). Starting today, when you choose the “Set up Git publishing” link on a website’s “Dashboard” page you’ll see two additional options show up when Git based publishing is enabled for the web-site: You can click on either the “Deploy from my CodePlex project” link or “Deploy from my GitHub project” link to walkthrough a simple workflow to configure a connection between your website and a source repository you host on CodePlex or GitHub.  Once this connection is established, CodePlex or GitHub will automatically notify Windows Azure every time a checkin occurs.  This will then cause Windows Azure to pull the source and compile/deploy the new version of your app automatically.  The below two videos walkthrough how easy this is to enable this workflow and deploy both an initial app and then make a change to it: Enabling Continuous Deployment with Windows Azure Websites and CodePlex (2 minutes) Enabling Continuous Deployment with Windows Azure Websites and GitHub (2 minutes) This approach enables a really clean continuous deployment workflow, and makes it much easier to support a team development environment using Git: Note: today’s release supports establishing connections with public GitHub/CodePlex repositories.  Support for private repositories will be enabled in a few weeks. Support for multiple branches Previously, we only supported deploying from the git ‘master’ branch.  Often, though, developers want to deploy from alternate branches (e.g. a staging or future branch). This is now a supported scenario – both with standalone git based projects, as well as ones linked to CodePlex or GitHub.  This enables a variety of useful scenarios.  For example, you can now have two web-sites - a “live” and “staging” version – both linked to the same repository on CodePlex or GitHub.  You can configure one of the web-sites to always pull whatever is in the master branch, and the other to pull what is in the staging branch.  This enables a really clean way to enable final testing of your site before it goes live. This 1 minute video demonstrates how to configure which branch to use with a web-site. Summary The above features are all now live in production and available to use immediately.  If you don’t already have a Windows Azure account, you can sign-up for a free trial and start using them today.  Visit the Windows Azure Developer Center to learn more about how to build apps with it. We’ll have even more new features and enhancements coming in the weeks ahead – including support for the recent Windows Server 2012 and .NET 4.5 releases (we will enable new web and worker role images with Windows Server 2012 and .NET 4.5 next month).  Keep an eye out on my blog for details as these new features become available. Hope this helps, Scott P.S. In addition to blogging, I am also now using Twitter for quick updates and to share links. Follow me at: twitter.com/scottgu

  Read the article

• How to structure a project that supports multiple versions of a service?

  - by Nick Canzoneri

  I'm hoping for some tips on creating a project (ASP.NET MVC, but I guess it doesn't really matter) against multiples versions of a service (in this case, actually multiple sets of WCF services). Right now, the web app uses only some of the services, but the eventual goal would be to use the features of all of the services. The code used to implement a service feature would likely be very similar between versions in most cases (but, of course, everything varies). So, how would you structure a project like this? Separate source control branches for each different version? Kind of shying away from this because I don't feel like branch merging should be something that we're going to be doing really often. Different project/solution files in the same branch? Could link the same shared projects easily Build some type of abstraction layer on top of the services, so that no matter what service is being used, it is the same to the web application?

  Read the article

• Odd company release cycle: Go Distributed Source Control?

  - by MrLane

  sorry about this long post, but I think it is worth it! I have just started with a small .NET shop that operates quite a bit differently to other places that I have worked. Unlike any of my previous positions, the software written here is targetted at multiple customers and not every customer gets the latest release of the software at the same time. As such, there is no "current production version." When a customer does get an update, they also get all of the features added to he software since their last update, which could be a long time ago. The software is highly configurable and features can be turned on and off: so called "feature toggles." Release cycles are very tight here, in fact they are not on a shedule: when a feature is complete the software is deployed to the relevant customer. The team only last year moved from Visual Source Safe to Team Foundation Server. The problem is they still use TFS as if it were VSS and enforce Checkout locks on a single code branch. Whenever a bug fix gets put out into the field (even for a single customer) they simply build whatever is in TFS, test the bug was fixed and deploy to the customer! (Myself coming from a pharma and medical devices software background this is unbeliveable!). The result is that half baked dev code gets put into production without being even tested. Bugs are always slipping into release builds, but often a customer who just got a build will not see these bugs if they don't use the feature the bug is in. The director knows this is a problem as the company is starting to grow all of a sudden with some big clients coming on board and more smaller ones. I have been asked to look at source control options in order to eliminate deploying of buggy or unfinished code but to not sacrifice the somewhat asyncronous nature of the teams releases. I have used VSS, TFS, SVN and Bazaar in my career, but TFS is where most of my experience has been. Previously most teams I have worked with use a two or three branch solution of Dev-Test-Prod, where for a month developers work directly in Dev and then changes are merged to Test then Prod, or promoted "when its done" rather than on a fixed cycle. Automated builds were used, using either Cruise Control or Team Build. In my previous job Bazaar was used sitting on top of SVN: devs worked in their own small feature branches then pushed their changes to SVN (which was tied into TeamCity). This was nice in that it was easy to isolate changes and share them with other peoples branches. With both of these models there was a central dev and prod (and sometimes test) branch through which code was pushed (and labels were used to mark builds in prod from which releases were made...and these were made into branches for bug fixes to releases and merged back to dev). This doesn't really suit the way of working here, however: there is no order to when various features will be released, they get pushed when they are complete. With this requirement the "continuous integration" approach as I see it breaks down. To get a new feature out with continuous integration it has to be pushed via dev-test-prod and that will capture any unfinished work in dev. I am thinking that to overcome this we should go down a heavily feature branched model with NO dev-test-prod branches, rather the source should exist as a series of feature branches which when development work is complete are locked, tested, fixed, locked, tested and then released. Other feature branches can grab changes from other branches when they need/want, so eventually all changes get absorbed into everyone elses. This fits very much down a pure Bazaar model from what I experienced at my last job. As flexible as this sounds it just seems odd to not have a dev trunk or prod branch somewhere, and I am worried about branches forking never to re-integrate, or small late changes made that never get pulled across to other branches and developers complaining about merge disasters... What are peoples thoughts on this? A second final question: I am somewhat confused about the exact definition of distributed source control: some people seem to suggest it is about just not having a central repository like TFS or SVN, some say it is about being disconnected (SVN is 90% disconnected and TFS has a perfectly functional offline mode) and others say it is about Feature Branching and ease of merging between branches with no parent-child relationship (TFS also has baseless merging!). Perhaps this is a second question!

  Read the article

• When to do Code Review

  - by mcass20

  We have recently moved to a scrum process and are working on tasks and user stories inside of sprints. We would like to do code reviews frequently to make them less daunting. We are thinking that doing them on a user story level but are unsure how to branch our code to account for this. We are using VS and TFS 2010 and we are a team of 6. We currently branch for features but are working on changing to branching for scrum. We do not currently use shelvesets and don't really want to implement if there are other techniques available. How do you recommend we implement code review per user story?

  Read the article

• Recommended: git-completion.bash

  - by andy.grover

  If you use git on a daily basis like I do, git-completion.bash is a great way to make your life a little easier. While I guess it does add tab-completion for git commands, the most useful feature for me is the ability to put the current branch into the cmdline prompt. Now that I am comfortable working with multiple git branches and remotes, a little reminder where I am prevents time-consuming mistakes. git-completion.bash lives in git's git tree.git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.gitcopy git/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash to ~/.git-completion.shFollow the instructions in the file to set up, and enable showing branch in $PS1I also use this alias in my ~/.gitconfig, which is convenient:[alias]        log1 = log --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commitHave fun!

  Read the article

• Wise settings for Git

  - by Marko Apfel

  These settings reflecting my Git-environment. It a result of reading and trying several ideas of input from others. Must-Haves Aliases [alias] ci = commit st = status co = checkout oneline = log --pretty=oneline br = branch la = log --pretty=\"format:%ad %h (%an): %s\" --date=short df = diff dc = diff --cached lg = log -p lol = log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit lola = log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit --all ls = ls-files ign = ls-files -o -i --exclude-standard Colors [color] ui = auto [color "branch"] current = yellow reverse local = yellow remote = green [color "diff"] meta = yellow bold frag = magenta bold old = red bold new = green bold whitespace = red reverse [color "status"] added = green changed = red untracked = cyan Core [core] autocrlf = true excludesfile = c:/Users/<user>/.gitignore editor = 'C:/Program Files (x86)/Notepad++/notepad++.exe' -multiInst -notabbar -nosession –noPlugin Nice to have Merge and Diff [merge] tool = kdiff3 [mergetool "kdiff3"] path = c:/Program Files (x86)/KDiff3/kdiff3.exe [mergetool "p4merge"] path = c:/Program Files (x86)/Perforce Merge/p4merge.exe cmd = p4merge \"$BASE\" \"$LOCAL\" \"$REMOTE\" \"$MERGED\" keepTemporaries = false trustExitCode = false keepBackup = false [diff] guitool = kdiff3 [difftool "kdiff3"] path = c:/Program Files (x86)/KDiff3/kdiff3.exe [difftool "p4merge"] path = C:/Users/<user>/My Applications/Perforce Merge/p4merge.exe cmd = \"p4merge.exe $LOCAL $REMOTE\" .

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >