Search Results

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

Page 38/1406 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

• How can I refactor a code base while others rapidly commit to it?

  - by Incognito

  I'm on a private project that eventually will become open source. We have a few team members, talented enough with the technologies to build apps, but not dedicated developers who can write clean/beautiful and most importantly long-term maintainable code. I've set out to refactor the code base, but it's a bit unwieldy as someone in the team out in another country I'm not in regular contact with could be updating this totally separate thing. I know one solution is to communicate rapidly or adopt better PM practices, but we're just not that big yet. I just want to clean up the code and merge nicely into what he has updated. Would a branch be a suitable plan? A best-effort-merge? Something else?

  Read the article

• Using versioning for settings in home?

  - by maaartinus

  I planned to use git for the important files in my home directory, so I can revert bad settings or transfer them to another computer as needed. But there's too much chaos there, with each program mixing wildly temporary files, caches, logs, backups, and everything. Finding anything worth saving is hard, and when I've found any settings done by myself, there were mixed with informations specific to the computer (so I could hardly take them to another one) and timestamps (so tracking useful changes is hard). Is anybody doing it or is it just hopeless? How to filter out the garbage?

  Read the article

• Handling bugs, quirks, or annoyances in vendor-supplied headers

  - by supercat

  If the header file supplied by a vendor of something with whom one's code must interact is deficient in some way, in what cases is it better to: Work around the header's deficiencies in the main code Copy the header file to the local project and fix it Fix the header file in the spot where it's stored as a vendor-supplied tool Fix the header file in the central spot, but also make a local copy and try to always have the two match Do something else As an example, the header file supplied by ST Micro for the STM320LF series contains the lines: typedef struct { __IO uint32_t MODER; __IO uint16_t OTYPER; uint16_t RESERVED0; .... __IO uint16_t BSRRL; /* BSRR register is split to 2 * 16-bit fields BSRRL */ __IO uint16_t BSRRH; /* BSRR register is split to 2 * 16-bit fields BSRRH */ .... } GPIO_TypeDef; In the hardware, and in the hardware documentation, BSRR is described as a single 32-bit register. About 98% of the time one wants to write to BSRR, one will only be interested in writing the upper half or the lower half; it is thus convenient to be able to use BSSRH and BSSRL as a means of writing half the register. On the other hand, there are occasions when it is necessary that the entire 32-bit register be written as a single atomic operation. The "optimal" way to write it (setting aside white-spacing issues) would be: typedef struct { __IO uint32_t MODER; __IO uint16_t OTYPER; uint16_t RESERVED0; .... union // Allow BSRR access as 32-bit register or two 16-bit registers { __IO uint32_t BSRR; // 32-bit BSSR register as a whole struct { __IO uint16_t BSRRL, BSRRH; };// Two 16-bit parts }; .... } GPIO_TypeDef; If the struct were defined that way, code could use BSRR when necessary to write all 32 bits, or BSRRH/BSRRL when writing 16 bits. Given that the header isn't that way, would better practice be to use the header as-is, but apply an icky typecast in the main code writing what would be idiomatically written as thePort->BSRR = 0x12345678; as *((uint32_t)&(thePort->BSSRH)) = 0x12345678;, or would be be better to use a patched header file? If the latter, where should the patched file me stored and how should it be managed?

  Read the article

• VCS strategy with TeamCity and CI

  - by Luke Puplett

  I'm planning a strategy which seeks to allow automated deployment of a website codebase into QA and production on check-in. We're using the fabulous TeamCity. We want to control release to live production; i.e. not have every check-in on Trunk go live. So my plan is to use Trunk as QA. Committing to Trunk triggers deployment to QA. I will then have a Production branch which also triggers deployment on commit, to the live site. The idea is simply that Trunk represents the mainline codebase but it hasn't gone live yet. We can branch features and do daily pulls from Trunk into those feature branches as per normal and merge/re-integrate into Trunk when we're happy for it to go to QA. When the BAs give the nod, we then smash a bottle of champagne and merge Trunk to Production and out she goes. I've never seen it done like this. Other greenfield CI strategies involve hiding features and code from production via config - this codebase can't cope with that - or just having CI on QA and taking cuts and manually pushing to live. Does my plan sound alright?

  Read the article

• need help connecting to bitbucket repository with sourceTree on windows 8

  - by pythonian29033

  I'm having trouble adding and cloning my repo on bitbucket to the sourceTree app, we're only starting with this now and we're a small company, so there's not much knowledge around this. now I've gone through The documentation on sourceTree for help, but I've noticed when I select my repo on bitbucket, it uses the repo url I select and appends a .git at the end. Then a notice message says This is not a valid source path / URL, but when I click Details... I get a dialogBox with nothing in it and an ok button. and when I'm done entering the details the 'Clone' button remains disabled. Is this Windows 8 or am I actually doing something wrong? Now I usually use ubuntu, but we just got these new ASUS ultrabooks at work and it's a pain to install any linux Distro on here. So I'm stuck with windows 8

  Read the article

• Develop in trunk and then branch off, or in release branch and then merge back?

  - by Torben Gundtofte-Bruun

  Say that we've decided on following a "release-based" branching strategy, so we'll have a branch for each release, and we can add maintenance updates as sub-branches from those. Does it matter whether we: develop and stabilize a new release in the trunk and then "save" that state in a new release branch; or first create that release branch and only merge into the trunk when the branch is stable? I find the former to be easier to deal with (less merging necessary), especially when we don't develop on multiple upcoming releases at the same time. Under normal circumstances we would all be working on the trunk, and only work on released branches if there are bugs to fix. What is the trunk actually used for in the latter approach? It seems to be almost obsolete, because I could create a future release branch based on the most recent released branch rather than from the trunk. Details based on comment below: Our product consists of a base platform and a number of modules on top; each is developed and even distributed separately from each other. Most team members work on several of these areas, so there's partial overlap between people. We generally work only on 1 future release and not at all on existing releases. One or two might work on a bugfix for an existing release for short periods of time. Our work isn't compiled and it's a mix of Unix shell scripts, XML configuration files, SQL packages, and more -- so there's no way to have push-button builds that can be tested. That's done manually, which is a bit laborious. A release cycle is typically half a year or more for the base platform; often 1 month for the modules.

  Read the article

• What's the best way to explain branching (of source code) to a client?

  - by Jon Hopkins

  The situation is that a client requested a number of changes about 9 months ago which they then put on hold with them half done. They've now requested more changes without having made up their mind to proceed with the first set of changes. The two sets of changes will require alterations to the same code modules. I've been tasked with explaining why them not making a decision about the first set of changes (either finish them or bin them) may incur additional costs (essentially because the changes would need to be made to a branch then if they proceed with the first set of changes we'd have to merge them to the trunk - which will be messy - and retest them). The question I have is this: How best to explain branching of code to a non-technical client?

  Read the article

• Advanced subversion techniques, what am I missing?

  - by Derek Adair

  I started using SVN about 9 months ago and it's been a game changer to say the least. Although, I feel I'm still a bit lost. I feel like there is a lot more I need to take advantage of to really step up my application development. For example I would like to be able to quarantine any volatile/major changes into some kind of 'sub-repository' or something. I'm finding that major changes are impeding minor bug fixes that are quite urgent. How can I push one simple update without pushing incomplete or broken code?

  Read the article

• What source control to use for my private gaming server?h

  - by crosenblum

  It has sql server components, client launcher, server software. I want to use an online resource where people can make updates, and make it easier to roll out any changes to players. Most of the files are just text files, or gtx image files. I don't think this qualifies as open source, so I don't know what to do. I tried github, and have a free account there, but it was really clunky, mass adding every file to be comitted. I really dont' like subversion but if that's the best option, i'll use it. The other people who will need access to the files will have no familiarity with any kind of source control, so I need an easy system for them to download files, make changes, and comit to the repository. Any suggestions?

  Read the article

• How do I check that my tests were not removed by other developers?

  - by parxier

  I've just came across an interesting collaborative coding issue at work. I've written some unit/functional/integration tests and implemented new functionality into application that's got ~20 developers working on it. All tests passed and I checked in the code. Next day I updated my project and noticed (by chance) that some of my test methods were deleted by other developers (merging problems on their end). New application code was not touched. How can I detect such problem automatically? I mean, I write tests to automatically check that my code still works (or was not deleted), how do I do the same for tests? We're using Java, JUnit, Selenium, SVN and Hudson CI if it matters.

  Read the article

• TFS SQL Deployment Data Script

  - by Greg

  We are using TFS and SQL 2005 (looking to upgrade to SQL 2012 if that makes a difference). We store our database schema in a Visual Studio Database project (VS 2010). When code is released to live we currently use the Visual Studio Database Project to build a script for all our schema changes. The problem we have been getting is having to alter or add to that script to add/fix data for the deployment. For example if we add a new non-nullable column to an existing table we need to populate that column with data during the insert. Other times we may want to create new records in transactional tables (e.g. assign specific users to a new security access). Do Visual Studio Database Projects have a way to store these scripts that only need to be run once and somehow include them in the build? Does it know which scripts need to be run (for example if we are inserting default data we don't want to do that again a second time)? OR Is there a better way to manage these scripts?

  Read the article

• How to keep the trunk stable when tests take a long time?

  - by Oak

  We have three sets of test suites: A "small" suite, taking only a couple of hours to run A "medium" suite that takes multiple hours, usually ran every night (nightly) A "large" suite that takes a week+ to run We also have a bunch of shorter test suites, but I'm not focusing on them here. The current methodology is to run the small suite before each commit to the trunk. Then, the medium suite runs every night, and if in the morning it turned out it failed, we try to isolate which of yesterday's commits was to blame, rollback that commit and retry the tests. A similar process, only at a weekly instead of nightly frequency, is done for the large suite. Unfortunately, the medium suite does fail pretty frequently. That means that the trunk is often unstable, which is extremely annoying when you want to make modifications and test them. It's annoying because when I check out from the trunk, I cannot know for certain it's stable, and if a test fails I cannot know for certain if it's my fault or not. My question is, is there some known methodology for handling these kinds of situations in a way which will leave the trunk always in top shape? e.g. "commit into a special precommit branch which will then periodically update the trunk every time the nightly passes". And does it matter if it's a centralized source control system like SVN or a distributed one like git? By the way I am a junior developer with a limited ability to change things, I'm just trying to understand if there's a way to handle this pain I am experiencing.

  Read the article

• Why not commit unresolved changes?

  - by Explosion Pills

  In a traditional VCS, I can understand why you would not commit unresolved files because you could break the build. However, I don't understand why you shouldn't commit unresolved files in a DVCS (some of them will actually prevent you from committing the files). Instead, I think that your repository should be locked from pushing and pulling, but not committing. Being able to commit during the merging process has several advantages (as I see it): The actual merge changes are in history. If the merge was very large, you could make periodic commits. If you made a mistake, it would be much easier to roll back (without having to redo the entire merge). The files could remain flagged as unresolved until they were marked as resolved. This would prevent pushing/pulling. You could also potentially have a set of changesets act as the merge instead of just a single one. This would allow you to still use tools such as git rerere. So why is committing with unresolved files frowned upon/prevented? Is there any reason other than tradition?

  Read the article

• Structure of a Git repository

  - by Luke Puplett

  Sorry if this is a duplicate, I looked. We're moving to Git. In Subversion, I'm used to having \trunk, \branches and \tags folders. With Git, switching between branches will replace the contents of the working directory, so am I right to assume that the way we used to work just doesn't apply with Git? My guess is that I'd have a repo folder with maybe a gitignore and readme.txt, then the folders for the projects that make up the repo, and that's it.

  Read the article

• What is the term for a really BIG source code commit?

  - by Ida

  Sometimes when we check the commit history of a software, we may see that there are a few commits that are really BIG - they may change 10 or 20 files with hundreds of changed source code lines (delta). I remember that there is a commonly used term for such BIG commit but I can't recall exactly what that term is. Can anyone help me? What is the term that programmers usually use to refer to such BIG and giant commit? BTW, is committing a lot of changes all together a good practice? UPDATE: thank you guys for the inspiring discussion! But I think "code bomb" is the term that I'm looking for.

  Read the article

• What Part of Your Project Should be in Source Code Control?

  - by muffinista

  A fellow developer has started work on a new Drupal project, and the sysadmin has suggested that they should only put the sites/default subdirectory in source control, because it "will make updates easily scriptable." Setting aside that somewhat dubious claim, it raises another question -- what files should be under source control? And is there a situation where some large chunk of files should be excluded? My opinion is that the entire tree for the project should be under control, and this would be true for a Drupal project, rails, or anything else. This seems like a no-brainer -- you clearly need versioning for your framework as much as you do for any custom code you write. That said, I would love to get other opinions on this. Are there any arguments for not having everything under control? Is this sysadmin a BOFH?

  Read the article

• what are the duties of a software control management (scm) engineer in a large company?

  - by Alex. S.

  I'm curious about what are the canonical responsibilities of such specialized role. Normally, I expected this to be part of the tasks of a normal developer, but in large companies I know this role is to be fulfilled by an engineer in his own. In my current company, there is a possibility for a new opening in a SCM position, so I could apply, but first I would like to hear about what, in your experience, characterize best this role.

  Read the article

• Using gerrit (or similar tool) on a team where multiple devs work on a single feature

  - by Bacon

  We have a team of roughly ~8 devs who regularly work on the same feature over the course of a 3 week sprint. It isn't quite pair programming, but in our current workflow devs regularly push up incomplete code for a colleague to complete. This worked fine before we introduced Gerrit, but now our commits need to represent chunks of test-passing, complete, logical functionality, and so the model breaks. My only idea is to have everybody push up to a separate, untracked branch up until the functionality is ready for review, then squash everything into commits that make sense and push up. Is there another Gerrit-ized workflow that could work? I know this is a widely discussed topic on Google Groups, and that there has recently been some discussion of Gerrit topic reviews, but I wanted to see if there is anybody out there using Gerrit in this way, and what the suggested workflow would be.

  Read the article

• Fixing a bug while working on a different part of the code base

  - by imgx64

  This happened at least once to me. I'm working on some part of the code base and find a small bug in a different part, and the bug stops me from completing what I'm currently trying to do. Fixing the bug could be as simple as changing a single statement. What do you do in that situation? Fix the bug and commit it together with your current work Save your current work elsewhere, fix the bug in a separate commit, then continue your work [1] Continue what you're supposed to do, commit the code (even if it breaks the build fails some tests), then fix the bug (and the build make tests pass) in a separate commit [1] In practice, this would mean: clone the original repository elsewhere, fix the bug, commit/push the changes, pull the commit to the repository you're working on, merge the changes, and continue your work. Edit: I changed number three to reflect what I really meant.

  Read the article

• Should Git be used for documentation and project management? Should the code be in a separate repository?

  - by EmpireJones

  I'm starting up a Git repository for a group project. Does it make sense to store documents in the same Git repository as code - it seems like this conflicts with the nature of the git revision flow. Here is a summary of my question(s): Is the Git revisioning style going to be confusing if both code and documents are checked into the same repository? Experiences with this? Is Git a good fit for documentation revision control? I am NOT asking if a Revision Control System in general should or shouldn't be used for documentation - it should. Thanks for the feedback so far!

  Read the article

• Upgrading an app to support iOS5, 6 and 7

  - by drekka

  We are looking at an app that needs an upgrade. Currently it runs on iOS4, 5 & 6. The upgrade will move to iOS5, 6 & 7. It will also involve some UI changes and new features. I've been reading stuff on iOS7 and looking at things like auto-layout. What we are trying to figure out is the best way to handle the differences between the various iOS versions. Auto-layout seems like a good idea, but it's not available on iOS 5. There are also API changes to consider between all 3 versions and other new features of iOS7. So the questions: How would you handle auto layout given iOS5 does not have it? Are there any significant differences between the SDKs that you think would cause issues? Would we be better off with separate code bases?

  Read the article

• What is Google's repository like?

  - by Ricket

  I heard Google has a giant private (internal) repository of all of their code and their employees have access to it so that when they are developing things they don't have to reinvent the wheel. I'd like to know more about it! Is there anyone here from Google that can describe it in a bit more detail, or do you know a bit more about it? I'm interested in knowing mainly about how it's organized and how they can make it easy for an employee to find something in such a giant codebase as it must be.

  Read the article

• Why is git-svn useful?

  - 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

• Which Git-based MIS to track workflow like Trac/Redmine but on console minimastically?

  - by hhh

  Definitions MIS = management information system Some list about console based solutions here and some GUI-hacks here. Been fed up to install all those dependencies and no make -files with GUI -things so which console-based MIS would you suggest for a game-development team with graphical -repo, animation -repo, code -repo, stories -repo, etc ? P.s. I do use Git -submodules and the reason for repo -fragmentation is due to roles and size, certain repos such as graphic -repos tend to be quite large so better to keep them separate. Perhaps useful to readers interested about this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/5881578/trac-vs-redmine https://github.com/jchris/sofa

  Read the article

• Disable updates on certain softwares

  - by tadatma

  When on trying to update an ubuntu distro (or for that matter any linux distribution) I often find a list of updates amounting to more than 150 mb or so. To my displeasure I find that the culprit more often than not has to do with libreoffice. I know I can untick those connected with libreoffice but I wonder if there is an elegant way; may be a small program in between that helps me untick those programs that I wish to stay un-updated.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >