Search Results

Search found 783 results on 32 pages for 'branches'.

Page 29/32 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

• Best source control system for maintaining different versions

  - by dalecooper

  Hi all! We need to be able to simultanously maintain a set of different versions of our system. I assume this is best done using branching. We currently use TFS2008 for source control, work items and automatic builds. What is the best version control solution for this task? Our organization is in the process of merging to TFS2010. Will TFS2010 give us the functionality we need to easily manage a series of branches per system version. We need to be able to keep each version isolated from the others, so that we can do testing deployment for each version. Our dev team consists of 5 .net developers and two flash developers. I have heard a lot of talk about GIT. Should we consider using GIT instead of TFS for source control? Is it possible to use TFS2010 together with GIT? Does anyone have similar setups that works nicely? Any sugggestions are appreciated! Thanks, Kjetil.

  Read the article

• How do repos (SVN, GIT) work?

  - by masfenix

  I read SO nearly everyday and mostly there is a thread about source control. I have a few questions. I am going to use SVN as example. 1) There is a team (small, large dosnt matter). In the morning everyone checks out the code to start working. At noon Person A commits, while person B still works on it. What happens when person B commits? how will person B know that there is an updated file? 2) I am assuming the answer to the first question is "run an update command which tells you", ok so person B finds out that the file they have been working on all morning in changed. When they see the udpated file, it seems like person A has REWRITTEN the file for better performance. What does person B do? Seems like there whole day was a waste of time. Or if they commit their version then its a waste of person A's time? 3) What are branches? thanks, and if anyone knows a laymen terms pdf or something that explains it that would be awesome.

  Read the article

• Git: changes not reflecting on other checkouts - huh?

  - by Chad Johnson

  Okay, so, I have my branches (git branch -a): * chat master remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master remotes/origin/chat I make changes (still with the 'chat' branch checkout out), commit, and push. I go to my server, on which I have a clone of the repository, and I do a fetch: git getch then I switch to the chat branch: git checkout --track -b chat origin/chat and I event do a pull, just to make sure everything is up to date: git pull and my changes from my other computer are NOT. THERE. What the heck am I doing wrong? If I had hair, I would have pulled it out. Thankfully I am bald. When I try a 'git commit' again, I get this # On branch chat # Changed but not updated: # (use "git add/rm <file>..." to update what will be committed) # (use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory) # # modified: app/controllers/chat_controller.rb # modified: app/views/dashboard/index.html.erb # modified: app/views/dashboard/layout.js.erb # modified: app/views/layouts/dashboard.html.erb # deleted: app/views/project/.tmp_edit.html.erb.55742~ # deleted: app/views/project/.tmp_edit.html.erb.83482~ # modified: public/stylesheets/dashboard/layout.css # # Untracked files: # (use "git add <file>..." to include in what will be committed) # # .loadpath # .project # config/database.yml # config/environments/development.yml # config/environments/production.yml # config/environments/test.yml # log/ no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a")

  Read the article

• Component based web project directory layout with git and symlinks

  - by karlthorwald

  I am planning my directory structure for a linux/apache/php web project like this: Only www.example.com/webroot/ will be exposed in apache www.example.com/ webroot/ index.php comp1/ comp2/ component/ comp1/ comp1.class.php comp1.js comp2/ comp2.class.php comp2.css lib/ lib1/ lib1.class.php the component/ and lib/ directory will only be in the php path. To make the css and js files visible in the webroot directory I am planning to use symlinks. webroot/ index.php comp1/ comp1.js (symlinked) comp2/ comp2.css (symlinked) I tried following these principles: layout by components and libraries, not by file type and not by "public' or 'non public', index.php is an exception. This is for easier development. symlinking files that need to be public for the components and libs to a public location, but still mirroring the layout. So the component and library structure is also visible in the resulting html code in the links, which might help development. git usage should be safe and always work. it would be ok to follow some procedure to add a symlink to git, but after that checking them out or changing branches should be handled safely and clean How will git handle the symlinking of the single files correctly, is there something to consider? When it comes to images I will need to link directories, how to handle that with git? component/ comp3/ comp3.class.php img/ img1.jpg img2.jpg img3.jpg They should be linked here: webroot/ comp3/ img/ (symlinked ?) If using symlinks for that has disadvantages maybe I could move images to the webroot/ tree directly, which would break the first principle for the third (git practicability). So this is a git and symlink question. But I would be interested to hear comments about the php layout, maybe you want to use the comment function for this.

  Read the article

• Design Philosophy Question - When to create new functions

  - by Eclyps19

  This is a general design question not relating to any language. I'm a bit torn between going for minimum code or optimum organization. I'll use my current project as an example. I have a bunch of tabs on a form that perform different functions. Lets say Tab 1 reads in a file with a specific layout, tab 2 exports a file to a specific location, etc. The problem I'm running into now is that I need these tabs to do something slightly different based on the contents of a variable. If it contains a 1 I may need to use Layout A and perform some extra concatenation, if it contains a 2 I may need to use Layout B and do no concatenation but add two integer fields, etc. There could be 10+ codes that I will be looking at. Is it more preferable to create an individual path for each code early on, or attempt to create a single path that branches out only when absolutely required. Creating an individual path for each code would allow my code to be extremely easy to follow at a glance, which in turn will help me out later on down the road when debugging or making changes. The downside to this is that I will increase the amount of code written by calling some of the same functions in multiple places (for example, steps 3, 5, and 9 for every single code may be exactly the same. Creating a single path that would branch out only when required will be a bit messier and more difficult to follow at a glance, but I would create less code by placing conditionals only at steps that are unique. I realize that this may be a case-by-case decision, but in general, if you were handed a previously built program to work on, which would you prefer?

  Read the article

• Web development scheme for staging and production servers using Git Push

  - by ServAce85

  I am using git to manage a dynamic website (PHP + MySQL) and I want to send my files from my localhost to my staging and development servers in the most efficient and hassle-free way. I am currently convinced that the best way for me to approach this problem is to use this git branching model to organize my local git repo. From there, I will use the release branches to push to my staging server for testing. Once I am happy that the release code works on the staging server, I can then merge with my master branch and push that to my production server. Pushing to Staging Server: As noted in many introductory git posts, I could run into problems pushing into a non-bare repo, so, as suggested in this response, I plan to push the release branch to a bare repo on the server and have a post-receive hook that clones the bare repo to a non-bare repo that also acts as the web-hosted directory. Pushing to Production Server: Here's my newest source of confusion... In the response that I cited above, it made me curious as to why @Paul states that it's a completely different story when pushing to a live, development server. I guess I don't see the problem. Would it be safe and hassle-free to follow the same steps as above, but for the master branch? Where are the potential pit-falls? Config Files: With respect to configuration files that are unique to each environment (.htaccess, config.php, etc), it seems simplest to .gitignore each of those files in their respective repos on their respective servers. Can you see anything immediately wrong with this? Better solutions? Accessing Data: Finally, as I initially stated, the site uses MySQL databases to store data. How would you suggest I access that data (for testing purposes) from the staging server and localhost? I realize that I may have asked way too many questions for a single post, but since they're all related to the best way to set up this development scheme, I thought it was necessary.

  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

• How to disable MSBuild's <RegisterOutput> target on a per-user basis?

  - by Roger Lipscombe

  I like to do my development as a normal (non-Admin) user. Our VS2010 project build fails with "Failed to register output. Please try enabling Per-user Redirection or register the component from a command prompt with elevated permissions." Since I'm not at liberty to change the project file, is there any way that I can add user-specific MSBuild targets or properties that disable this step on a specific machine, or for a specific user? I'd prefer not to hack on the core MSBuild files. I don't want to change the project file because I might then accidentally check it back in. Nor do I want to hack on the MSBuild core files, because they might get overwritten by a service pack. Given that the Visual C++ project files (and associated .targets and .props files) have about a million places to alter the build order and to import arbitrary files, I was hoping for something along those lines. MSBuild imports/evaluates the project file as follows (I've only looked down the branches that interest me): Foo.vcxproj Microsoft.Cpp.Default.props Microsoft.Cpp.props $(UserRootDir)\Microsoft.Cpp.$(Platform).user.props Microsoft.Cpp.targets Microsoft.Cpp.$(Platform).targets ImportBefore\* Microsoft.CppCommon.targets The "RegisterOutput" target is defined in Microsoft.CppCommon.targets. I was hoping to replace this by putting a do-nothing "RegisterOutput" target in $(UserRootDir)\Microsoft.Cpp.$(Platform).user.props, which is %LOCALAPPDATA%\MSBuild\v4.0\Microsoft.Cpp.Win32.user.props (UserRootDir is set in Microsoft.Cpp.Default.props if it's not already set). Unfortunately, MSBuild uses the last-defined target, which means that mine gets overridden by the built-in one. Alternatively, I could attempt to set the %(Link.RegisterOutput) metadata, but I'd have to do that on all Link items. Any idea how to do that, or even if it'll work?

  Read the article

• Show/hide text based on optgroup selection using Jquery

  - by general exception

  I have the following HTML markup:- <select name="Fault" class="textbox" id="fault"> <option>Single Light Out</option> <option>Light Dim</option> <option>Light On In Daytime</option> <option>Erratic Operating Times</option> <option>Flashing/Flickering</option> <option>Causing Tv/Radio Interference</option> <option>Obscured By Hedge/Tree Branches</option> <option>Bracket Arm Needs Realigning</option> <option>Shade/Cover Missing</option> <option>Column In Poor Condition</option> <option>Several Lights Out (please state how many)</option> <option>Column Leaning</option> <option>Door Missing/Wires Exposed</option> <option>Column Knocked Down/Traffic Accident</option> <option>Lantern Or Bracket Broken Off/Hanging On Wires</option> <option>Shade/Cover Hanging Open</option> </select> <span id="faulttext" style="color:Red; display:none">Text in the span</span> This Jquery snippet adds the last 5 options into an option group. $('#fault option:nth-child(n+12)').wrapAll('<optgroup label="Urgent Reasons">'); What I want to do is, remove the display:none if any of the items within the <optgroup> are selected, effectively displaying the span message, possibly with a fade in transition, and also hide the message if any options outside of the <optgroup> are selected.

  Read the article

• Recommendations for Continuous integration for Mercurial/Kiln + MSBuild + MSTest

  - by TDD

  We have our source code stored in Kiln/Mercurial repositories; we use MSBuild to build our product and we have Unit Tests that utilize MSTest (Visual Studio Unit Tests). What solutions exist to implement a continuous integration machine (i.e. Build machine). The requirements for this are: A build should be kicked of when necessary (i.e. code has changed in the Repositories we care about) Before the actual build, the latest version of the source code must be acquired from the repository we are building from The build must build the entire product The build must build all Unit Tests The build must execute all unit tests A summary of success/failure must be sent out after the build has finished; this must include information about the build itself but also about which Unit Tests failed and which ones succeeded. The summary must contain which changesets were in this build that were not yet in the previous successful (!) build The system must be configurable so that it can build from multiple branches(/Repositories). Ideally, this system would run on a single box (our product isn't that big) without any server components. What solutions are currently available? What are their pros/cons? From the list above, what can be done and what cannot be done? Thanks

  Read the article

• When is the reintegrate option really necessary?

  - by Tor Hovland

  If you always sync a feature branch before you merge it back, why do you really have to use the --reintegrate option? The Subversion book says: When merging your branch back to the trunk, however, the underlying mathematics is quite different. Your feature branch is now a mishmosh of both duplicated trunk changes and private branch changes, so there's no simple contiguous range of revisions to copy over. By specifying the --reintegrate option, you're asking Subversion to carefully replicate only those changes unique to your branch. (And in fact, it does this by comparing the latest trunk tree with the latest branch tree: the resulting difference is exactly your branch changes!) So the --reintegrate option only merges the changes that are unique to the feature branch. But if you always sync before merge (which is a recommended practice, in order to deal with any conflicts on the feature branch), then the only changes between the branches are the changes that are unique to the feature branch, right? And if Subversion tries to merge code that is already on the target branch, it will just do nothing, right? In this blog post, Mark Phippard writes: http://blogs.open.collab.net/svn/2008/07/subversion-merg.html If we include those synched revisions, then we merge back changes that already exist in trunk. This yields unnecessary and confusing conflicts. Can somebody give me an example of when dropping reintegrate gives me unnecessary conflicts?

  Read the article

• how to filter files from the root "classes" and "test-classes" folders in Eclipse?

  - by Kidburla

  I am using ClearCase in my application which generates a whole load of ".copyarea.db" files (one in every folder). These cause conflicts when publishing to Tomcat as Eclipse will bundle the "classes" and "test-classes" folders into one JAR (not sure why it does this - as there is no need to have test classes available on the application server). Any folders with the same names will have a separate .copyarea.db in the classes and test-classes branches. I managed to get around this problem in general by adding ".copyarea.db" to the Filtered resources on the Java->Compiler->Building->Output Folder preference page. This stops the file appearing in source output (package/class folders), the vast majority of cases. However there remains the problem of the root folder, i.e. "target/classes/.copyarea.db" and "target/test-classes/.copyarea.db". These files are not filtered as they are not part of the compile task. Just deleting the files manually doesn't help either, as Eclipse expects to find them and doesn't. How can I exclude these ".copyarea.db" files from the root "classes" and "test-classes" folders?

  Read the article

• git push says everything up to date when it definitely is not

  - by Wolf

  I have a public repository. No one else has forked, pulled, or done anything else to it. I made some minor changes to one file, successfully committed them, and tried to push. It says 'Everything up-to-date'. There are no branches. I'm very, very new to git and I don't understand what on earth is going on. git remote show origin tells me: HEAD branch: master Remote branch: master tracked Local ref configured for 'git push': master pushes to master (up to date) Any ideas what I can do to make this understand that it's NOT up to date? Thanks Updates: git status: # On branch master # Untracked files: # (use "git add ..." to include in what will be committed) # # histmarkup.el # vendor/yasnippet-0.6.1c/snippets/ no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a") git branch -a: * master remotes/origin/master git fsck: dangling tree 105cb101ca1a4d2cbe1b5c73eb4a238e22cb4998 dangling tree 85bd0461f0fcb1618d46c8a80d3a4a7932de34bb Update 2: I re-opened the modified file, and the modifications I KNOW I had made were gone. So I added them again, went through the rigamarole of git status, git add filename, git commit -m "(message)", and git push origin master, and all of a sudden it works the way it's supposed to.

  Read the article

• In-order tree traversal

  - by Chris S

  I have the following text from an academic course I took a while ago about in-order traversal (they also call it pancaking) of a binary tree (not BST): In-order tree traversal Draw a line around the outside of the tree. Start to the left of the root, and go around the outside of the tree, to end up to the right of the root. Stay as close to the tree as possible, but do not cross the tree. (Think of the tree — its branches and nodes — as a solid barrier.) The order of the nodes is the order in which this line passes underneath them. If you are unsure as to when you go “underneath” a node, remember that a node “to the left” always comes first. Here's the example used (slightly different tree from below) However when I do a search on google, I get a conflicting definition. For example the wikipedia example: Inorder traversal sequence: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I (leftchild,rootnode,right node) But according to (my understanding of) definition #1, this should be A, B, D, C, E, F, G, I, H Can anyone clarify which definition is correct? They might be both describing different traversal methods, but happen to be using the same name. I'm having trouble believing the peer-reviewed academic text is wrong, but can't be certain.

  Read the article

• How to exclude tags folder from triggering build in Teamcity?

  - by Jaya mareedu

  Hello, I recently installed Teamcity 5.0.3. I am trying to setup automated build for a .NET 2.0 VS2005 project. I use NAnt and MSBuild task to perform the build. The project structure is a typical SVN structure svn://localhost/ITools is my repository and the project structure is VisualTrack trunk branches tags I created a new project in Teamcity and then created a build configuration for that project. I asked it to kick off a build everytime there is a change detected in SVN VisualTrack VCS. I also configured it to create a label in VisualTrack/tags for every successful build. The problem I am running into is that the build is getting trigerred everytime teamcity is creating a new label under tags. I only want the build to be triggered if some developer commits his or her changes into trunk. Next step I took was to create a build trigger rule to exclude the tags path by specifying a trigger pattern as -:VisualTrack/tags/**, but looks like its not working. I believe the pattern I specified is not correct. Can someone please help me resolve this issue? Thanks, Jaya.

  Read the article

• Fixing merge conflicts?

  - by user291701

  I have two remote branches, "grape" and "master". I'm currently on "grape". Now I switch to "master": git checkout master Now I want to pull all changes from "grape" into "master" - is this the way to do it?: git merge origin grape It's my understanding that git will then pull all the current state of the remote branch "grape" into my local copy of "master". It will try to auto-merge for me. If there are conflicts, the files in conflict will have some conflict text actually injected into the file. I then have to go into those files, and delete the chunk I don't want (essentially telling git how to merge these files). For each file in conflict, do I add and commit the changes again?: git add problemfile1.txt git commit -m "Fixed merge conflict." git add problemfile2.txt git commit -m "Fixed another merge conflict." ... after I've fixed all the merge conflicts like above, do I just push to "master" again to finish up the process?: git push origin master or is there something else we need to do when we get into this conflict state? Thank you

  Read the article

• Should checkins be small steps or complete features?

  - by Caspin

  Two of version controls uses seem to dictate different checkin styles. distibution centric: changesets will generally reflect a complete feature. In general these checkins will be larger. This style is more user/maintainer friendly. rollback centric: changesets will be individual small steps so the history can function like an incredibly powerful undo. In general these checkins will be smaller. This style is more developer friendly. I like to use my version control as really powerful undo while while I banging away at some stubborn code/bug. In this way I'm not afraid to make drastic changes just to try out a possible solution. However, this seems to give me a fragmented file history with lots of "well that didn't work" checkins. If instead I try to have my changeset reflect complete features I loose the use of my version control software for experimentation. However, it is much easier for user/maintainers to figure out how the code is evolving. Which has great advantages for code reviews, managing multiple branches, etc. So what's a developer to do? checkin small steps or complete features?

  Read the article

• Repository layout and sparse checkouts

  - by chuanose

  My team is considering to move from Clearcase to Subversion and we are thinking of organising the repository like this: \trunk\project1 \trunk\project2 \trunk\project3 \trunk\staticlib1 \trunk\staticlib2 \trunk\staticlib3 \branches\.. \tags\.. The issue here is that we have lots of projects (1000+) and each project is a dll that links in several common static libraries. Therefore checking out everything in trunk is a non-starter as it will take way too long (~2 GB), and is unwieldy for branching. Using svn:externals to pull out relevant folders for each project doesn't seem ideal because it results in several working copies for each static library folder. We also cannot do an atomic commit if the changes span the project and some static libraries. Sparse checkouts sounds very suitable for this as we can write a script to pull out only the required directories. However when we want to merge changes from a branch back to the trunk we will need to first check out a full trunk. Wonder if there is some advice on 1) a better repository organization or 2) a way to merge over branch changes to a trunk working copy that is sparse?

  Read the article

• Committing to a different branch with commit -r

  - by Amarghosh

  Does CVS allow committing a file to a different branch than the one it was checked out from? The man page and some sites suggest that we can do a cvs ci -r branch-1 file.c but it gives the following error: cvs commit: Up-to-date check failed for `file.c' cvs [commit aborted]: correct above errors first! I did a cvs diff -r branch-1 file.c to make sure that contents of file.c in my BASE and branch-1 are indeed the same. I know that we can manually check out using cvs co -r branch-1, merge the main branch to it (and fix any merge issues) and then do a check in. The problem is that there are a number of branches and I would like to automate things using a script. This thread seems to suggest that -r has been removed. Can someone confirm that? If ci -r is not supported, I am thinking of doing something like: Make sure the branch versions and base version are the same with a cvs diff Check in to the current branch Keep a copy of the file in a temp file For each branch: Check out from branch with -r replace the file with the temp file Check in (it'll go the branch as -r is sticky) Delete the temp file The replacing part sounds like cheating to me - can you think of any potential issues that might occur? Anything I should be careful about? Is there any other way to automate this process?

  Read the article

• Best workflow with Git & Github

  - by Tom Schlick

  Hey guys, im looking for some advice on how to properly structure the workflow for my team with git & github. we are recent svn converts and its kind of confusing on how we should best setup our day-to-day workflow. Here is a little background, im comfortable with command line and my team is pretty new to it but can follow use commands. We all are working on the same project with 3 environments (development, staging, and production). We are a mix of developers & designers so some use the Git GUI and some command line. Our setup in svn went something like this. We had a branch for development, staging and production. When people were confident with code they would commit and then merge it into the staging. The server would update itself and on a release day (weekly) we would do a diff and push the changes to the production server. Now i setup those branches and got the process with the server running but its the actual workflow that is confusing the hell out of me. It seems like overkill that every time someone makes a change on a file they would create a new branch, commit, merge, and delete that branch... from what i have read they would be able to do it on a specific commit (using the hash), do i have that right? is this an acceptable way to go about things with git? any advice would be greatly appreciated.

  Read the article

• Is SharePoint a good solution for me?

  - by Pam Bullock

  My company has many branches that use the same software suite that we've written for them. We're looking at SharePoint as a way to open a dialog with them about the software - reviews, change requests (not official ones, just for us to get an idea and for them to discuss amongst themselves what would be helpful). We would also like to utilize the document repository feature and possibly the blog. SharePoint is already available to us if we'd like to use it so that's why we're looking into it. I've done a lot of research and watched a lot of starter tutorials. It seems like it has what we're looking for. For those of you that know it well: Do you think it would be a good solution for us? Do you think it would be overkill? If so, Do you have an alternative suggestion? Are there other aspects of SharePoint that I haven't discovered yet that seems like it would be helpful for what we're doing? I will continue to research online but it's always great to hear the opinion of someone experienced with the product. Thanks so much! Pam

  Read the article

• Sharing code between two or more rails apps... alternatives to git submodules?

  - by jtgameover

  We have two separate rails_app, foo/ and bar/ (separate for good reason). They both depend on some models, etc. in a common/ folder, currently parallel to foo and bar. Our current svn setup uses svn:externals to share common/. This weekend we wanted to try out git. After much research, it appears that the "kosher" way to solve this is using git submodule. We got that working after separating foo,bar,common into separate repositories, but then realized all the strings attached: Always commit the submodule before committing the parent. Always push the submodule before pushing the parent. Make sure that the submodule's HEAD points to a branch before committing to it. (If you're a bash user, I recommend using git-completion to put the current branch name in your prompt.) Always run 'git submodule update' after switching branches or pulling changes. All these gotchas complicate things further than add,commit,push. We're looking for simpler ways to share common in git. This guy seems to have success using the git subtree extension, but that deviates from standard gitand still doesn't look that simple. Is this the best we can do given our project structure? I don't know enough about rails plugins/engines, but that seems like a possible RoR-ish way to share libraries. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Can I keep git from pushing the master branch to all remotes by default?

  - by Curtis

  I have a local git repository with two remotes ('origin' is for internal development, and 'other' is for an external contractor to use). The master branch in my local repository tracks the master in 'origin', which is correct. I also have a branch 'external' which tracks the master in 'other'. The problem I have now is that my master brach ALSO wants to push to the master in 'other' as well, which is an issue. Is there any way I can specify that the local master should NOT push to other/master? I've already tried updating my .git/config file to include: [branch "master"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/master [branch "external"] remote = other merge = refs/heads/master [push] default = upstream But remote show still shows that my master is pushing to both remotes: toko:engine cmlacy$ git remote show origin Password: * remote origin Fetch URL: <REPO LOCATION> Push URL: <REPO LOCATION> HEAD branch: master Remote branches: master tracked refresh-hook tracked Local branch configured for 'git pull': master merges with remote master Local ref configured for 'git push': master pushes to master (up to date) Those are all correct. toko:engine cmlacy$ git remote show other Password: * remote other Fetch URL: <REPO LOCATION> Push URL: <REPO LOCATION> HEAD branch: master Remote branch: master tracked Local branch configured for 'git pull': external merges with remote master Local ref configured for 'git push': master pushes to master (local out of date) That last section is the problem. 'external' should merge with other/master, but master should NEVER push to other/master. It's never gong to work.

  Read the article

• svn copy causes "...(403 Forbidden) in reponse to PROPFIND", other actions work

  - by Hops

  Just for a short bit of background, the reason I'm tracking this particular subversion oddity down is because I found it troubleshooting our new Maven setup (specifically the release plugin). release:prepare gives me the same error buried in a stack trace. Executing this command... svn copy http://[server]/svn/tran1/myproject/trunk http://[server]/svn/tran1/myproject/tags/testtag ...gives me the following error: svn: Server sent unexpected return value (403 Forbidden) in response to PROPFIND request for '/svn/tran1' I thought this might be an authentication issue, but I'm able to do pretty much every other subversion thing I can think of. Checkout, add, commit and update all work from the command line. And here's where it gets really weird... I can create branches using Eclipse's Subclipse plugin. This might not be all that strange if Eclipse isn't actually doing an svn copy. tran1 also has a sibling subversion repository next to it. The copy command works fine there. The URL it's trying to get permission for also looks wrong. It's asking about /svn/tran1, when the permissions are set up one level deeper /svn/tran1/myproject/ Any ideas what might be causing my error? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Best (in your opinion) GIT workflow for case when releases are done on demand (in most cases 1-2 tickets at once)

  - by Robert

  I'm rather a Git newbie and I'm looking for your advice. In the company I work for we have a "workflow" where we have a single Git repo for our project with 2 branches: master and prod. All devs work on the master branch. If a ticket is done (from the dev perspective), we push to the repo. If all tests are passed, we make a release. The issue is that in most cases, the request from business guys sounds like: "please release ticket A or A && B". In most cases, I end up doing something like git checkout prod git cherry-pick --no-commit commit_hash git commit -m "blah blah to prod" -a As you can see this is not a perfect solution, and I'm under a huge impression this is a perfect way to nowhere especially when change A depends on changes B and C. Do you have any suggestions how to handle releases on demand if more devs works on the same branch and the flow looks like I described above? All suggestions are welcome. I cannot change business processes and it will have to stay as it is - unfortunately.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >