Search Results

Search found 51569 results on 2063 pages for 'version number'.

Page 39/2063 | < Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • How do I structure code and builds for continuous delivery of multiple applications in a small team?

    - by kingdango
    Background: 3-5 developers supporting (and building new) internal applications for a non-software company. We use TFS although I don't think that matters much for my question. I want to be able to develop a deployment pipeline and adopt continuous integration / deployment techniques. Here's what our source tree looks like right now. We use a single TFS Team Project. $/MAIN/src/ $/MAIN/src/ApplicationA/VSSOlution.sln $/MAIN/src/ApplicationA/ApplicationAProject1.csproj $/MAIN/src/ApplicationA/ApplicationAProject2.csproj $/MAIN/src/ApplicationB/... $/MAIN/src/ApplicationC $/MAIN/src/SharedInfrastructureA $/MAIN/src/SharedInfrastructureB My Goal (a pretty typical promotion pipeline) When a code change is made to a given application I want to be able to build that application and auto-deploy that change to a DEV server. I may also need to build dependencies on Shared Infrastructure Components. I often also have some database scripts or changes as well If developer testing passes I want to have an manually triggered but automated deploy of that build on a STAGING server where end-users will review new functionality. Once it's approved by end users I want to a manually triggered auto-deploy to production Question: How can I best adopt continuous deployment techniques in a multi-application environment? A lot of the advice I see is more single-application-specific, how is that best applied to multiple applications? For step 1, do I simply setup a separate Team Build for each application? What's the best approach to accomplishing steps 2 and 3 of promoting latest build to new environments? I've seen this work well with web apps but what about database changes

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Convincing my coworkers to use Hudson CI

    - by in0de
    Im really aware of some benefits of using Hudson as CI server. But, im facing the problem to convince my coworkers to install and use it. To put some context, we are developing two different products (one is an enterprise search engine based on Apache Solr) and several enterprise search projects. We are facing a lot of versioning issues and i think Hudson will solve this problems. They argued about its productivity and learning curve What Hudson's benefits would you spotlight?

    Read the article

  • Resources for using TFS for Agile Project Development?

    - by Amy P
    Our company just installed TFS for us to start using for project development processes and source control. They want us to start using it to manage our projects as well. We have a small team, no current bug or task tracking software, and 2 developers of the 3 have experience with any actual methodologies. What books, websites, and/or other information can you recommend for us to use to get started?

    Read the article

  • From TFS to Git

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm a .NET developer and I've used TFS (team foundation server) as my source control software many times. Good features of TFS are: Good integration with Visual Studio (so I do almost everything visually; no console commands) Easy check-out, check-in process Easy merging and conflict resolution Easy automated builds Branching Now, I want to use Git as the backbone, repository, and source control of my open source projects. My projects are in C#, JavaScript, or PHP language with MySQL, or SQL Server databases as the storage mechanism. I just used github.com's help for this purpose and I created a profile there, and downloaded a GUI for Git. Up to this part was so easy. But I'm almost stuck at going along any further. I just want to do some simple (really simple) operations, including: Creating a project on Git and mapping it to a folder on my laptop Checking out/checking in files and folders Resolving conflicts That's all I need to do now. But it seems that the GUI is not that user friendly. I expect the GUI to have a Connect To... or something like that, and then I expect a list of projects to be shown, and when I choose one, I expect to see the list of files and folders of that project, just like exploring your TFS project in Visual Studio. Then I want to be able to right click a file and select check-in... or check-out and stuff like that. Do I expect much? What should I do to easily use Git just like TFS? What am I missing here?

    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

  • Should I expect my team to have more than a basic proficiency with our source control system?

    - by Joshua Smith
    My company switched from Subversion to Git about three months ago. We had weeks of advance notice prior to the switch. Since I'd never used Git before (or any other DVCS), I read Pro Git and spent a little time spinning up my own repositories and playing around, so that when we switched I'd be able to keep working with minimal pain. Now I'm the 'Git guy' by default. With a couple of exceptions, most of my team still has no idea how Git works. For example, they still think of branches as complete copies of the source code, and even go so far as to clone the repo into multiple folders (one per branch). They generally look at Git as a scary black box. Given the fundamental nature of source control in our daily work (not to mention the ridiculous amount of power Git affords us), I'm of the opinion that any dev who doesn't achieve a certain level of proficiency with it is a liability. Should I expect my team to have at least some understanding of how Git works internally, and how to use it beyond the most basic pull/merge/push operations? Or am I just making something out of nothing?

    Read the article

  • Keeping up with upstream changes while adding small fixes or even major changes

    - by neo
    Often I need to apply some small fixes (to make them run on my environment) or even change some parts of the software (to tailor it to my needs) to software from outside. However this obviously creates problem with updating said software, even when it changes nothing related to my fix. It would be easier when the software provided integration for some kind of plugins but more often than not it doesn't. What would be an ideal workflow regarding that? Most of the projects are git repos I pulled from outside. How should I apply my changes so that I can update painlessly? You can assume that external changes are much more often and larger than my own ones, so reviewing each one of them won't be a solution.

    Read the article

  • Confusion about git; how to undo?

    - by dan
    I wanted to install some source code that was on git. Don't really know what that means, I've never used git before, but I figured it was time to learn so, I first installed git. Next I tried to clone the git directory of the software I want to install. I got a message saying "the authenticity of can't be established". I went ahead and ended up with another message saying warning such and such will be added to known hosts. I went ahead and it said something about hanging up on the connection. After searching the internet for a while I realized I didn't need git to install the software but now I have it installed and have added some host to some file or another. I'm concerned I've created some security issues I need to fix. Can anyone help me undo what I've done, or better understand what I've done. Did adding a git project open up my system? Beyond that can anyone tell me how git works. Everything I've found assumes I know stuff that I don't yet. Thanks

    Read the article

  • After upgrading to 12.10 usb drives fail to mount

    - by John Shore
    Following upgrade to 12.10, my usb drives - both pen drives and a usb hard drive - fail to mount with the error message: Unable to mount *name of drive* volume Adding read ACL for uid 1000 to '/media/*my home file name*' failed: Operation not supported This is on a desktop Dell Inspiron 530. I also have a Dell Inspiron Mini 10 netbook which I also upgraded to 12.10 (slightly smaller installation on a flash hard drive). all devices mount automatically without problems on this computer.

    Read the article

  • How do you structure your shared code so that it is "re-findable" for new developers?

    - by awmckinley
    I started working at my current job about 8 months ago, and its been one of the best experiences I've had as a young programmer. It's a small company, and both my co-developers are brilliant guys. One of the practices that they both have been encouraging is lots of code-reuse. Our code base is mainly C#, and we're using a centralized revision control system. The way the repository is currently structured, there is a single folder in which all shared class libraries are placed (along with unit tests for each library), and our revision control system allows for sharing or linking those libraries out to other projects. What I'm trying to understand at this point is how the current structure of the folder can be made more conducive for finding those libraries again. I've talked to the other developers about this, and they agree that it's gotten a little messy. I find that I am sometimes "reinventing the wheel" because I didn't realize that there was an existing piece of code that solved a particular problem. The issue is complicated further by the fact that we're sharing some code between ASP.NET MVC2, WinForms, and Windows CE projects, and sharing code between applications built against multiple versions of .NET. How do other people approach this? Is the answer in naming the libraries in a certain way or is it preferable to invest in some code-search software? Is the answer in doc comments? Should we be sharing libraries at all or should we simply branch the class libraries for re-use? Thanks for any and all help!

    Read the article

  • Using Mercurial repository inside a Git one: Feasible? Sane?

    - by Portablejim
    I am thinking on creating a Mercurial repository under a Git repository. e.g. ..../git-repository/directory/hg-repo/ The 2 repositories Is it possible to manage (keeping your sanity)? How similiar is it to this? I am a computer science student at University. I manage my work in Git, mainly as a distribution mechanism (after realizing that rsync fails when you have changes in more than one place) between my desktop and usb drive. I try use of Git as a VCS as I do work. I have finished a semester where I did a small group project to prepare for a larger group project next year. We had to use Subversion, and experienced the joys of a centralised VCS (including downtime). I tried to keep the subversion repository separate to my Git repository for the subject**, however it was annoying that it was seperate (not in the place where I store assignments). I therefore moved to using an Subversion repository inside my Git repository. As I think ahead (maybe I am thinking too far ahead) I realise that I will have to try and convince people to use a DVCS and Mercurial will probably be the one that is preferred (Windows and Mac GUI support, closer to Subversion). Having done some research into the whole Git vs Mercurial debate (however not used Mercurial at all) I still prefer Git. Can I have a Mercurial repository inside a Git one without going mad (or it ruining something)? Or is it something that I should not consider at all? (Or is it a bad question that should be deleted?) ** I think outside of Australia it is called a course

    Read the article

  • How do you avoid working on the wrong branch?

    - by henginy
    Being careful is usually enough to prevent problems, but sometimes I need to double check the branch I'm working on (e.g. "hmm... I'm in the dev branch, right?") by checking the source control path of a random file. In looking for an easier way, I thought of naming the solution files accordingly (e.g. MySolution_Dev.sln) but with different file names in each branch, I can't merge the solution files. It's not that big of a deal but are there any methods or "small tricks" you use to quickly ensure you're in the correct branch? I'm using Visual Studio 2010 with TFS 2008.

    Read the article

  • How to manage a Closed Source High-Risk Project?

    - by abel
    I am currently planning to develop a J2EE website and wish to bring in 1 developer and 1 web designer to assist me. The project is a financial app with a niche market. I plan to keep the source closed . However, I fear that my would-be employees could easily copy the codebase and use it /sell it to a third party especially when they switch jobs. The app development will take 4-6months and perhaps more and I may have to bring in people after the app goes live. How do I keep the source to myself. Are there techniques companies use to guard their source. I foresee disabling pendrives and dvd writers on my development machines, but uploading data or attaching the code in one's mail would still be possible. My question is incomplete. But programmers who have been in my situation, please advice. How should I go about this? Building a team, maintaining code-secrecy,etc. I am looking forward to sign a secrecy contract with the employees if needed too. (Please add relevant tags) Update Thank you for all the answers. I certainly won't be disabling all USB ports and DVD writers now. But I think I should be logging activity(How exactly should I do that?) I am wary of scalpers who would join and then run off with the existing code. I haven't met any, but I have been advised to be wary of them. I would include a secrecy clause, but given this is a startup with almost no funding and in a highly competitive business niche with bigger players in the field, I doubt I would be able to detect or pursue any scalpers. How do I hire people I trust, when I don't know them personally. Their resume will be helpful but otherwise trust will develop only with time. But finally even if they do run away with the code, it is service that matters after the sale is made. So I am not really worried for the long term.

    Read the article

  • Is it good idea to require to commit only working code?

    - by Astronavigator
    Sometimes I hear people saying something like "All committed code must be working". In some articles people even write descriptions how to create svn or git hooks that compile and test code before commit. In my company we usually create one branch for a feature, and one programmer usually works in this branch. I often (1 per 100, I think and as I think with good reason) do non-compilable commits. It seems to me that requirement of "always compilable/stable" commits conflicts with the idea of frequent commits. A programmer would rather make one commit in a week than test the whole project's stability/compilability ten times a day. For only compilable code I use tags and some selected branches (trunk etc). I see these reasons to commit not fully working or not compilable code: If I develop a new feature, it is hard to make it work writing a few lines of code. If I am editing a feature, it is again sometimes hard to keep code working every time. If I am changing some function's prototype or interface, I would also make hundreds of changes, not mechanical changes, but intellectual. Sometimes one of them could cause me to carry out hundreds of commits (but if I want all commits to be stable I should commit 1 time instead of 100). In all these cases to make stable commits I would make commits containing many-many-many changes and it will be very-very-very hard to find out "What happened in this commit?". Another aspect of this problem is that compiling code gives no guarantee of proper working. So is it good idea to require every commit to be stable/compilable? Does it depends on branching model or CVS? In your company, is it forbidden to make non compilable commits? Is it (and why) a bad idea to use only selected branches (including trunk) and tags for stable versions?

    Read the article

  • Code base migration - old versioning system to modern

    - by JohnP
    Our current code base is contained in a versioning system that is old and outdated (Visual Sourcesafe 5.0, mid 1990's), and contains a mix of packages that are no longer used, ones that are being used but no longer updated, and newer code. It is also a mix of 4 languages, and includes libraries for some of our systems (Such as Dialogic, Sun Tzu {clipper}) implementations. This breaks down into the following categories: Legacy code - No longer used (Systems that have been retired or replaced, etc) Legacy code - In current use (No intentions for upgrades or minor bug fixes, only major fixes if needed) Current code - In current use, and will be used for future versions/development Support libraries - For both legacy and current code (Some of the legacy libraries are no longer available as well) We would like to migrate this to a newer versioning system as we will be adding more developers, and expanding the reach to include remote programmers. When migrating, how do you structure it? Do you just perform a dump of all the data and then import it into the new system, or do you segregate according to type before you bring it into the new system? Do you set up a separate area for libraries, or keep them with the relevant packages? Do you separate by language, system, both? A general outline and methodology is fine, it doesn't need to be broken down to individual program level.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46  | Next Page >