Search Results

Search found 35142 results on 1406 pages for 'latest version'.

Page 36/1406 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

  • Are there any subversion "dash board" web applications that can show me a list of recent commits from all my repositories?

    - by Joe
    I am looking for something like a subversion dashboard that at the very least can show me commits from across a group of repositories. Is there anything like this available? Since it could just as well be dead simple and I can't find anything immediately I am thinking if just scratching my own itch here, but I am hoping someone has wanted this before? Are there any subversion "dashboards" that an show me even a simple twitter-like list of commits from across my repositories?

    Read the article

  • git tagging comments - best practices

    - by Evan
    I've adopted a tagging system of x.x.x.x, and this works fine. However, you also need to leave a comment with your git tag. I've been using descriptions such as "fixes bug Y" or "feature X", but is this the best sort of comment to be leaving? Particularly, what if a tag encompasses several fixes, it seems not to make sense to have a very long tag comment. Does this mean that I should be creating a tag for every bug fix or feature, or should the tag comments be reflective of something else? I have a few ideas that may be good, but I'd love some advice from seasoned git tagging veterans :) For those who prefer specific examples: 1.0.0.0 - initial release 1.0.0.1 - bug fix for issue X 1.0.0.2 - (what if this is a bug fix for multiple issues, the comment would be too long, no?) Another example, in this example, the comments are more or less the same as the tags, it seems redundant. Is there something else we could be describing? https://github.com/osCommerce/oscommerce2/tags

    Read the article

  • Is there tool agnostic terminology for source control activities?

    - by C. Ross
    My team is entering into some discussions on source control (process and possibly tools) and we would like a tool agnostic terminology for the various activities. The environment does have multiple (old) VCS's, and multiple desired (new) VCS's. Is there a standard definition of activities, or at least some commonly accepted set? Example activities (in CVS terminology): Branch Check out Update Merge

    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

  • How can I merge two SubVersion branches to one working copy without committing?

    - by Eric Belair
    My current SubVersion workflow is like so: The trunk is used to make small content changes and bug fixes to the main source code. Branches are used for adding/editing enhancements and projects. So, trunk changes are made, tested, committed and deployed pretty quickly. Whereas, enhancements and projects need additional user testing and approval. At time, I have two branches that need testing and approval at the same time. I don't want to merge to the trunk and commit until the changes are fully tested and approved. What I need to do is merge both branches to one working copy without any commits. I am using Tortoise SVN, and when I try to merge the second branch, I get an error message: Cannot merge into a working copy that has local modifications Is there a way that I can do this without committing either merge?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Database source control

    - by Bojan Skrchevski
    Should database files(scripts etc.) be on source control? If so, what is the best method to keep it and update it there? Is there even a need for database files to be on source control since we can put it on a development server where everyone can use it and make changes to it if needed. But, then we can't get it back if someone messes it up. What approach is best used for databases on source-control?

    Read the article

  • TortoiseSVN post-commit.bat doesn't work [migrated]

    - by user565739
    I am using TortoiseSVN on Windows 7 x64. I tried to put a post-commit.bat in the hooks folder of a repository, but it doesn't work at all. So I tried to put a pre-commit.bat (the content is exact the same as post-commit.bat) in hooks, and it worked fine. This is very strange. The .bat file is very simple, I just tried with: @echo off setlocal set REPOS=%1 set TXN=%2 xcopy C:\a C:\b\ /S /F exit 0 Anyone makes post-commit work with TortoiseSVN?

    Read the article

  • Are there advantages to using a DVCS for a solo developer?

    - by SnOrfus
    Right now, I use visual svn on my server, and have ankhsvn/tortoise on my personal machine. It works fine enough, and I don't have to change, but if I can see some benefits of using a DVCS, then I might give it a go. However, if there's no point or difference using it without other people, then I won't bother. So again, I ask, are there any benefits to using a DVCS when you're the only developer?

    Read the article

  • Github Organization Repositories, Issues, Multiple Developers, and Forking - Best Workflow Practices

    - by Jim Rubenstein
    A weird title, yes, but I've got a bit of ground to cover I think. We have an organization account on github with private repositories. We want to use github's native issues/pull-requests features (pull requests are basically exactly what we want as far as code reviews and feature discussions). We found the tool hub by defunkt which has a cool little feature of being able to convert an existing issue to a pull request, and automatically associate your current branch with it. I'm wondering if it is best practice to have each developer in the organization fork the organization's repository to do their feature work/bug fixes/etc. This seems like a pretty solid work flow (as, it's basically what every open source project on github does) but we want to be sure that we can track issues and pull requests from ONE source, the organization's repository. So I have a few questions: Is a fork-per-developer approach appropriate in this case? It seems like it could be a little overkill. I'm not sure that we need a fork for every developer, unless we introduce developers who don't have direct push access and need all their code reviewed. In which case, we would want to institute a policy like that, for those developers only. So, which is better? All developers in a single repository, or a fork for everyone? Does anyone have experience with the hub tool, specifically the pull-request feature? If we do a fork-per-developer (or even for less-privileged devs) will the pull-request feature of hub operate on the pull requests from the upstream master repository (the organization's repository?) or does it have different behavior? EDIT I did some testing with issues, forks, and pull requests and found that. If you create an issue on your organization's repository, then fork the repository from your organization to your own github account, do some changes, merge to your fork's master branch. When you try to run hub -i <issue #> you get an error, User is not authorized to modify the issue. So, apparently that work flow won't work.

    Read the article

  • Managing Eclipse projects in source control

    - by Matt Phillips
    I've been using eclipse for a long time to do development. One of the problems I've come across when working on other people's projects is if they come from source control, some of the eclipse project files "default.properties" and other xml config files are missing. Its usually a big pain in the butt to get the project running in eclipse. I understand the reasoning to not have certain files tracked because they may be full of specific stuff to a certain eclipse install. How do all of you manage that?

    Read the article

  • When should I make the first commit to source control?

    - by Kendall Frey
    I'm never sure when a project is far enough along to first commit to source control. I tend to put off committing until the project is 'framework-complete' and primarily commit features from then on. (I haven't done any personal projects large enough to have a core framework too big for this.) I have a feeling this isn't best practice, though I'm not sure what all could go wrong. Let's say, for example, I have a project which consists of a single code file. It will take about 10 lines of boilerplate code, and 100 lines to get the project working with extremely basic functionality (1 or 2 features). Should I first check in: The empty file? The boilerplate code? The first features? At some other point? Also, what are the reasons to check in at a specific point?

    Read the article

  • How and where do you store your private work/sourcecode?

    - by Amir Rezaei
    I have worked as a developer for over 10 years now. During that time I have had my own small projects where I have developed tools, applications and games. I have not found any robust solution to store my work. It’s always fun to get back to your code and see how you did before and how you would do it now. It’s just work that is unfortunate to lose. There are SVN solution such as Google’s Project Hosting. However I’m not interested in sharing my code or making it open source. Currently I’m hosting my own SVN server. So here comes my question: How and where do you store your private work/sourcecode? Requirements: Sourcecode versioning Backup Prefers free Edit: Remote access Edit: I have used Dropbox + TrueCrypt + SVN. Unfortunately you are limited to 5gb.

    Read the article

  • Is there an established or defined best practice for source control branching between development and production builds?

    - by Matthew Patrick Cashatt
    Thanks for looking. I struggled in how to phrase my question, so let me give an example in hopes of making more clear what I am after: I currently work on a dev team responsible for maintaining and adding features to a web application. We have a development server and we use source control (TFS). Each day everyone checks in their code and when the code (running on the dev server) passes our QA/QC program, it goes to production. Recently, however, we had a bug in production which required an immediate production fix. The problem was that several of us developers had code checked in that was not ready for production so we had to either quickly complete and QA the code, or roll back everything, undo pending changes, etc. In other words, it was a mess. This made me wonder: Is there an established design pattern that prevents this type of scenario. It seems like there must be some "textbook" answer to this, but I am unsure what that would be. Perhaps a development branch of the code and a "release-ready" or production branch of the code?

    Read the article

  • How can I best manage making open source code releases from my company's confidential research code?

    - by DeveloperDon
    My company (let's call them Acme Technology) has a library of approximately one thousand source files that originally came from its Acme Labs research group, incubated in a development group for a couple years, and has more recently been provided to a handful of customers under non-disclosure. Acme is getting ready to release perhaps 75% of the code to the open source community. The other 25% would be released later, but for now, is either not ready for customer use or contains code related to future innovations they need to keep out of the hands of competitors. The code is presently formatted with #ifdefs that permit the same code base to work with the pre-production platforms that will be available to university researchers and a much wider range of commercial customers once it goes to open source, while at the same time being available for experimentation and prototyping and forward compatibility testing with the future platform. Keeping a single code base is considered essential for the economics (and sanity) of my group who would have a tough time maintaining two copies in parallel. Files in our current base look something like this: > // Copyright 2012 (C) Acme Technology, All Rights Reserved. > // Very large, often varied and restrictive copyright license in English and French, > // sometimes also embedded in make files and shell scripts with varied > // comment styles. > > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > #ifdef UNDER_RESEARCH > holographicVisualization(on); > #endif > } And we would like to convert them to something like: > // GPL Copyright (C) Acme Technology Labs 2012, Some rights reserved. > // Acme appreciates your interest in its technology, please contact [email protected] > // for technical support, and www.acme.com/emergingTech for updates and RSS feed. > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > } Is there a tool, parse library, or popular script that can replace the copyright and strip out not just #ifdefs, but variations like #if defined(UNDER_RESEARCH), etc.? The code is presently in Git and would likely be hosted somewhere that uses Git. Would there be a way to safely link repositories together so we can efficiently reintegrate our improvements with the open source versions? Advice about other pitfalls is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Should my colleagues review each others code from source control system?

    - by Daniel Excinsky
    Hi everybody. So that's my story: one of my colleagues uses to review all the code, hosted to revision system. I'm not speaking about adequate review of changes in parts that he belongs to. He watches the code file to file, line to line. Every new file and every modified. I feel just like being spied on! My guess is that if code was already hosted to control system, you should trust it as workable at least. My question is, maybe I'm just too paranoiac and practice of reviewing each others code is good? P.S: We're team of only three developers, and I fear that if there will be more of us, colleague just won't have time to review all the the code we'll write.

    Read the article

  • how to integrate plastic scm with jira? [closed]

    - by bilal fazlani
    I am trying to migrate from VSS to Plastic SCM and want to use it with JIRA. I have reached this far. http://i.stack.imgur.com/h1wSw.png I tried referring to their help documentation. but that did not help. Does someone know how to link a new branch to an issue in JIRA ? I tried to giving same name to Issue and Branch. That din't work. If the Issue key is : "DEMO-7", what should be the "Branch Prefix" & "Branch Name" in Plastic SCM ? I am sure I am missing something.

    Read the article

  • HG: fork web app project to separate API code from app code

    - by cs_brandt
    I have a web app thats been in active development for about 8 months now and its becoming apparent that the project has a need to maintain a separation between app specific code and our OO Javascript API. What I would like to do is have another repository with the following general structure of the js API code. repo_name | +---build | +---build_tools | +---doc | +---src | +---js Of course this structure is different from the original web app directory structure. If I make changes to this new repository how could I pull in those changes to the web app repository without unintentionally removing files or modifying the directory structure of the web app repository?

    Read the article

  • When to delete a branch in Git

    - by Jo-Herman Haugholt
    I have a script project I've been managing with Git. Besides two main branches, several minor branches have been introduced over time to cover minor features, tweaks or temporary changes. Some of these branches are nearing end-of-life, and I won't be updating them any more. What's the different philosophies for handling branches like this? Should they be removed, or left in the repository unmaintained? If I do, won't I end up with a cluttered repository?

    Read the article

  • Combining Code Review with Trust Metrics

    - by DragonFax
    I don't get the chance to partake of it at work. But I love the idea of code review. Especially of online open source code review like Gerrit Code Review. I love what Trust Metrics have done for forums and collective intelligences sites on the internet like stackexchange, reddit, and wikipedia. Would it be possible to combine the two and come up with an open source project management system. Something that ends up being mostly community driven. Perhaps a kind of wikipedia of code for a project. Where submitters become popular/trusted by having lots of patches reviewed favoriably by others, and accepted into the trunk. And popular/trusted submitters get their patchs accepted faster/easier. I'm looking for some opinions on the idea, or perhaps pointers to where its been done before, if thats the case. This might leave the lead maintiner little more to do than: wrangle the direction of the project by fast-tracking or vetoing specific patches. settling disputes when the CI tests break, or fixing it himself. Is design by community worse than design by committee?

    Read the article

  • Why are tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn useful? [closed]

    - by Wes
    I have read these related questions: I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS? git for personal (one-man) projects. Overkill? ...and I understand why git is useful. What I don't understand is why tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn are useful. When, for example, a team is working with svn, or any other centralised SCM, why would a member of the team opt to use git-svn? Are there any practical advantages for a developer that has to synchronize with a centralized repository?

    Read the article

  • Git workflow for small teams

    - by janos
    I'm working on a git workflow to implement in a small team. The core ideas in the workflow: there is a shared project master that all team members can write to all development is done exclusively on feature branches feature branches are code reviewed by a team member other than the branch author the feature branch is eventually merged into the shared master and the cycle starts again The article explains the steps in this cycle in detail: https://github.com/janosgyerik/git-workflows-book/blob/small-team-workflow/chapter05.md Does this make sense or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Is reference to bug/issue in commit message considered good practice?

    - by Christian P
    I'm working on a project where we have the source control set up to automatically write notes in the bug tracker. We simply write the bug issue ID in the commit message and the commit message is added as a note to the bug tracker. I can see only a few downsides for this practice. If sometime in the future the source code gets separated from the bug tracking software (or the reported bugs/issues are somehow lost). Or when someone is looking in the history of commits but doesn't have access to our bug tracker. My question is if having a bug/issue reference in the commit message is considered good practice? Are there some other downsides?

    Read the article

  • How and where do you store your private work/source codes?

    - by Amir Rezaei
    I have worked as developer for over 10 years now. Over the time I have had my own small projects where I have developed tool/application and games. I have not found any robust solution to store my work. It’s always fun to get back to your code and see how you did before and how you would do it now. It’s just a work that is unfortunate to get lost. There are SVN solution such as Google’s Project Hosting. However I’m not interested in sharing my code or making it open source. Currently I’m hosting my own SVN server. So here comes my question. How and where do you store your private work/source codes? Requirements: Source code versioning Backup Prefers free

    Read the article

  • Why fork a library for your own application?

    - by Mr. Shickadance
    Why should a programmer ever fork a library for inclusion in a widely used application? I ask this question because I was reading an article about why Chromium isn't packaged for many Linux distros like Fedora. Apparently its largely due to the fact that Google has forked a number of libraries, modified them, and included them in Chromium. This has driven up the complexity of packaging releases. There are a number of reasons why this can be a bad thing, but how strong a case can you actually make for doing so in a large widely used application such as Chromium? The original article: http://ostatic.com/blog/making-projects-easier-to-package-why-chromium-isnt-in-fedora Isn't it usually worth the effort to make slight modifications to your own program in order to use a popular and well developed library?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >