Search Results

Search found 341 results on 14 pages for 'branching'.

Page 4/14 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Git branch unknown to local clone

    - by Rimian
    I have a git repository with two branches. If I clone my repo I can only see the master branch. I have both branches up to date. The problem is I don't fully understand merging and branching. Darn it! My example can be seen here: http://github.com/rimian/rimian/network Can anyone tell me how to get this back to normal?

    Read the article

  • Git branch strategy for small dev team

    - by Bilal Aslam
    We have a web app that we update and release almost daily. We use git as our VCS, and our current branching strategy is very simple and broken: we have a master branch and we check changes that we 'feel good about' into it. This works, but only until we check in a breaking change. Does anyone have a favorite git branch strategy for small teams which meets the following requirements: Works well for teams of 2 to 3 developers Lightweight, and not too much process Allows devs to isolate work on bug fixes and larger features with ease Allows us to keep a stable branch (for those 'oh crap' moments when we have to get our production servers working) Ideally, I'd love to see your step-by-step process for a dev working on a new bug

    Read the article

  • Merging branches in tortoiseHg does not seem to work

    - by Spock
    In a project, I have a default branch and another named branch. After a merging both branches and committing it, the graph in TortoiseHg shows that both branches have been merged. However, pushing to a remote repository (which is at the stage before branching, it only has the default branch), I get the message "abort: push creates new remote branches". If I'm not mistaken, I'm left with one branch after merging, so why this error message? Note: the graph still shows that I have 2 heads, is it in anyway related to this?

    Read the article

  • How do I prevent a branch from being pushed to another branch in BZR?

    - by cabbey
    We use a dev-test-prod branching scheme with bzr 2. I'd like to setup a bzr hook on the prod branch that will reject a push from the test branch. Looking at the bzr docs, this looks doable, but I'm kinda surprised that my searches don't turn up any one having done it, at least not via any of the keywords I've thought to search by. I'm hoping someone has already gotten this working and can share their path to success. My current thought is to use the pre_change_branch_tip hook to check for the presence of a file on the test branch. If it's present, fail the commit. You may ask, why test for a file, why not just test the branch name? Because I actually need to handle the case where our developers have branched their devel branch, pulled in the shared test branch and are now (erroneously) pushing that test branch to production instead of pushing their feature branch to production. And it seems a billion times easier to look for a file in the new branch than to try to interrogate the sending branch's lineage. So has someone done this? seen it done? or do I get to venture out into the uncharted wasteland that is hook development with bzr? :)

    Read the article

  • Safely delete a TFS branch project

    - by Codesleuth
    I'm currently reorganising our TFS source control for a very large set of solutions, and I've done this successfully so far. I have a problem at the moment where I need to delete a legacy "Release Branch" TFS project that was branched for the old structure, and is no-longer required since I now host a release branch within the new structure. This is an example of how the source control now looks after moving everything: $/Source Project /Trunk /[Projects] /Release /[Projects] $/Release Branch Project /[Projects] /[Other legacy stuff] So far I've found information that says: tf delete /lock:checkout /recursive TestMain to delete a branch. TfsDeleteProject to delete a project tf delete seems to be only relevant when I need to delete a branch that is within the same project as the trunk, and TfsDeleteProject doesn't seem like it will delete the branch association from the source project (I hope I'm wrong, see below). Can someone tell me if the above will work, and in what order I should perform them in, to successfully delete the TFS $/Release Branch Project while also deleting the branch association (from right-click $/Source Project - Properties - Branches)?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to lock a branch in GIT

    - by Senthil A Kumar
    I have an idea of locking a repository from users pushing files into it by having a lock script in the GIT update hook since the push can only recognize the userid as arguments and not the branches. So i can lock the entire repo which is just locking a directory. Is there a way to lock a specific branch in GIT? Or is there a way an Update Hook can identify from which branch the user is pushing and to which branch the code is pushed?

    Read the article

  • git local master branch stopped tracking remotes/origin/master, can't push

    - by Paul Smith
    Just when I thought I'd got the hang of the git checkout -b newbranch - commit/commit/commit - git checkout master - git merge newbranch - git rebase -i master - git push workflow in git, something blew up, and I can't see any reason for it. Here's the general workflow, which has worked for me in the past: # make sure I'm up to date on master: $ git checkout master $ git pull # k, no conflicts # start my new feature $ git checkout -b FEATURE9 # master @ 2f93e34 Switched to a new branch 'FEATURE9' ... work, commit, work, commit, work, commit... $ git commit -a $ git checkout master $ git merge FEATURE9 $ git rebase -i master # squash some of the FEATURE9 ugliness Ok so far; now what I expect to see -- and normally do see -- is this: $ git status # On branch master # Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 1 commit. # nothing to commit (working directory clean) But instead, I only see "nothing to commit (working directory clean)", no "Your branch is ahead of 'origin/master' by 1 commit.", and git pull shows this weirdness: $ git pull From . # unexpected * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD # unexpected Already up-to-date. # expected And git branch -a -v shows this: $ git branch -a -v FEATURE9 3eaf059 started feature 9 * master 3eaf059 started feature 9 remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/master remotes/origin/master 2f93e34 some boring previous commit # should=3eaf059 git branch clearly shows that I'm currently on * master, and git log clearly shows that master (local) is at 3eaf059, while remotes/origin/HEAD - remotes/origin/master is stuck back at the fork. Ideally I'd like to know the semantics of how I might have gotten into this, but I would settle for a way to get my working copy tracking the remote master again & get the two back in sync without losing history. Thanks! (Note: I re-cloned the repo in a new directory and manually re-applied the changes, and everything worked fine, but I don't want that to be the standard workaround.) Addendum: The title says "can't push", but there's no error message. I just get the "already up to date" response even though git branch -a -v shows that local master is ahead of /remotes/origin/master. Here's the output from git pull and git remote -v, respectively: $ git pull From . * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD Already up-to-date. $ git remote -v origin [email protected]:proj.git (fetch) origin [email protected]:proj.git (push) Addendum 2: It looks as if my local master is configured to push to the remote, but not to pull from it. After doing for remote in 'git branch -r | grep -v master '; do git checkout --track $remote ; done, here's what I have. It seems I just need to get master pulling from remotes/origin/master again, no? $ git remote show origin * remote origin Fetch URL: [email protected]:proj.git Push URL: [email protected]:proj.git HEAD branch: master Remote branches: experiment_f tracked master tracked Local branches configured for 'git pull': experiment_f merges with remote experiment_f Local refs configured for 'git push': experiment_f pushes to experiment_f (up to date) master pushes to master (local out of date)

    Read the article

  • Trimming GIT Checkins

    - by yar
    I check my code into a GIT branch every few minutes or so, and the comments end up being things like "Everything broken starting again" and other absurdities. Then every few minutes/hours/days I do a serious checkin with a real comment like, "Fixed bug #22.55, 3rd time." How can I separate these two concepts? I would like to be able to remove all my frequent-checkins and just leave the serious ones.

    Read the article

  • Tools for Maintaining Branches in SVN

    - by Chris Conway
    My team uses SVN for source control. Recently, I've been working on a branch with occasional merges from the trunk and it's been a fairly annoying experience (cf. Joel Spolsky's "Subversion Story #1"), so I've been looking alternative ways to manage branches and merging. Given that a centralized SVN repository is non-negotiable, what I'd like is a set of tools that satisfy the following conditions. Complete revision history should be stored in SVN for both trunk and branches. Merging in either direction (and potentially criss-crossing) should be relatively painless. Merging history should be stored in SVN to the greatest extent possible. I've looked at both git-svn and bzr-svn and neither seems to be up to the job—basically, given the revision history they can export from the SVN repository, they can't seem to do any better a job handling merges than SVN can. For example, after cloning the repository with git, the revision history for my branch shows the original branch off of trunk, but git doesn't "see" any of the interim SVN merges as "native" merges—the revision history is one long line. As a result, any attempts to merge from trunk in git yield just as many conflicts as an SVN merge would. (Besides, the git-svn documentation explicitly warns against using git to merge between branches.) Is there a way to adjust my workflow to make git satisfy the above requirements? Maybe I just need tips or tricks (or a separate merging tool?) to help SVN be better at merging into branches?

    Read the article

  • Git-svn refuses to create branch on svn repository error: "not in the same repository"

    - by Danny
    I am attempting to create a svn branch using git-svn. The repository was created with --stdlayout. Unfortunately it generates an error stating the "Source and dest appear not to be in the same repository". The error appears to be the result of it not including the username in the source url. $ git svn branch foo-as-bar -m "Attempt to make Foo into Bar." Copying svn+ssh://my.foo.company/r/sandbox/foo/trunk at r1173 to svn+ssh://[email protected]/r/sandbox/foo/branches/foo-as-bar... Trying to use an unsupported feature: Source and dest appear not to be in the same repository (src: 'svn+ssh://my.foo.company/r/sandbox/foo/trunk'; dst: 'svn+ssh://[email protected]/r/sandbox/foo/branches/foo-as-bar') at /home/me/.install/git/libexec/git-core/git-svn line 610 I intially thought this was simply a configuration issue, examination of .git/config doesn't suggest anything incorrect. [svn-remote "svn"] url = svn+ssh://[email protected]/r fetch = sandbox/foo/trunk:refs/remotes/trunk branches = sandbox/foo/branches/*:refs/remotes/* tags = sandbox/foo/tags/*:refs/remotes/tags/* I am using git version 1.6.3.3. Can anyone shed any light on why this might be occuring, and how best to address it?

    Read the article

  • git push current branch

    - by Nocturne
    I use the following command to push to my remote branch: git push origin sandbox If I say git push origin Does that push changes in my other branches too, or does it only update my current branch? (I have three branches: master, production and sandbox). (The git push documentation is not very clear about this, so I'd like to clarify this for good) What branches/remotes do the following git push commands exactly update? git push git push origin ("origin" above is a remote) (I understand that "git push [remote] [branch]" will push only that branch to the remote)

    Read the article

  • TFS CM resource recommendations / some questions

    - by John
    I am working with a small development shop that consists of a group of 5 developers and 1 QA person. We are using TFS and need to get more sophisticated on how we use this tool. Currently the development team checks in their code each evening. A nightly build runs and pushes the output out on a network share. Our QA person uses this build for testing the next day. Sometimes the build off the trunk codebase has issues/bugs that hinder the QA process, and it hasn’t been a giant issue in the past, but we now want to get to a state where we have our QA person testing on a stable QA build. So I believe we need to create a branch (call it QA), and the developers will continue to develop off the trunk, but the QA person will use builds created from code in the QA branch. Seems simple enough, but we have started doing code reviews as well. So we have another desire in that only code that has been code reviewed can be promoted to the QA branch. Each developer works off a TFS item, and when they check in a changeset, they do it against a TFS item which creates a link between a checked in code file and a TFS item. Eventually the TFS item becomes complete and ready for code review. All code attached to the TFS item is reviewed. How can the versions of these files get promoted to the QA branch? In the QA branch, if a bug is found, we want to fix it in the QA branch and have the changes migrated back to the trunk. I believe TFS has a way to automatically do this doesn’t it? Long story short, we want to get to a build and CM environment that I believe is pretty standard, but we are unaware of how to make this happen with TFS. Given our situation above, can someone point out a book or website(s) that would address our specific needs? We would like to make this happen without having to get too deep in CM theory or TFS. I very much appreciate any and all suggestions! Thanks, John

    Read the article

  • Git checkout doesn't change anything, and it's getting very frustrating

    - by Josh
    I really like git. At least, I like the idea of git. Being able to checkout my master project as a separate branch where I can change whatever I want without risk of screwing everything else up is awesome. But it's not working. Every time I checkout a branch to another branch, make changes to the one branch, and then checkout the original branch, I still have all the files and changes that happened in the other branch. This is getting extremely frustrating. I've read that this can happen when you have files open in the IDE while doing this, but I've been pretty careful about that and both closed the files in the IDE, closed the IDE, and shut down my rails server before switching branches, and this still happens. Also, running 'git clean -f' either deletes everything that happened after some arbitrary commit (and randomly, at that), or, as in the latest case, didn't change anything back to its original state. I thought I was using git correctly, but at this point, I'm at my wit's end here. I'm trying to work with a bunch of experimental code using a stable version of my project, but I keep having to manually track down and fix all the changes I made. Any ideas or suggestions? git checkout -b photo_tagging git branch # to make sure it's right # make a bunch of changes, creations, etc git status # see what's changed since before git add . # approve of the changes, I guess, since if I do git commit after this, it says no changes git commit -m 'these are changes I made' git checkout master git branch #=> *master # look at files, tags_controller is still there, added in photo_tagging # and code added in photo_tagging branch are still there in *master This seems to happen whether I do a commit or not on the branch.

    Read the article

  • What Happens to Commit Logs on a Branch After Merging?

    - by Levi Hackwith
    Scenario: Programmer creates a branch for project 'foo' called 'my_foo' at revision 5 Programmer makes multiple changes to multiple files as he works on the 'my_foo' feature. At the end of each major step, say adding several new functions to class, the programmer does an svn commit on the appropriate files therefore committing them to the branch After several weeks and many commits later (each commit having a commit log describing what he did), the programmer merges the branch back into the trunk: #Assume the following is being done from inside a working copy of the trunk: svn merge -r 5:15 file:///path/to/repo/branches/my_foo Hazzah! he's merged all his changes back into trunk! There's much rejoicing and drinking of Mountain Dew. Now let's say another programmer comes along a week later and updates their working copy from revision 5 to revision 15. "Wow", they say. "I wonder what's changed since revision 5". The programmer then does an svn status on their working copy and they get something like this: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r15 | programmer1 | 2010-03-20 21:27:04 -0400 (Sat, 20 Mar 2010) | 1 line Merging Version 2.0 Changes into trunk ------------------------------------------------------------------------ r5 | programmer2 | 2010-02-15 10:59:55 -0500 (Mon, 15 Feb 2010) | 1 line Added assets/images/tumblr_icon.png to trunk What the heck happened to all the notes that the other programmer put in with all of his commits in his branch? Do those not get pulled over during a merge? Am I crazy or just forgetting something?

    Read the article

  • Is there a 3 way merger tool that “understands” common refactoring?

    - by Ian Ringrose
    When a simple refactoring like “rename field” has been done on one branch it can be very hard to merge the changes into the other branches. (Extract method is much harder as the merge tools don’t seem to match the unchanged blocks well) Now in my dreams, I am thinking of a tool that can record (or work out) what well defined refactoring operations have been done on one branch and then “replay” them on the other branch, rather than trying to merge every line the refactoring has affected. see also "Is there an intelligent 3rd merge tool that understands VB.NET" for the other half of my pain! Also has anyone try something like MolhadoRef (blog article about MolhadoRef and Refactoring-aware SCM), This is, in theory, refactoring-aware source control.

    Read the article

  • Does GIT have evil twin issues?

    - by Senthil A Kumar
    In ClearCase evil twin occurs when two files are found with the same name in two different versions of the directory, and If the element OIDs are different but the names are the same. In GIT the SHA1 id is always unique and file with same name always have different SHA1 id’s. We don’t have a concept of Evil twins, but there are likely cases where there is chance for 2 or more developers creating a file with different contents with same filename in the same directory. During merge, when both files are completely different, there are chances of the developers to keep his changes alone and leave other changes resulting in code loss. Can anyone let me know if there will be issues in GIT similar to ClearCase or sine each SHA1 id is unique there won't be any Evil twin issues in GIT.

    Read the article

  • Branch by abstraction: Are there "examples" of how it can be done?

    - by Philipp Keller
    Having read Martin Fowlers "Feature Branch" and Flickrs "Flipping Out" (http://www.liip.to/flippingout) I guess there are a few guys out there who do: all (or most) development on Trunk release Trunk regularly (assuming updating your web site) not-yet-approved or not-yet-finished features should not be visible/have no impact on the regular user I've got 2 questions: granted - Flickr's article seems to work for "frontend code". But how is it cleaned up? Don't the ifs pile up? how does this work for the more "backend part"? Thinking of database changes, or model refactoring. Working with ifs doesn't seem to work - and copy-pasting classes for small adaptions also seems awkward. Are there any articles out there answering these 2 questions?

    Read the article

  • Sync GIT and ClearCase

    - by Senthil A Kumar
    I am currently working on ClearCase and now migrating to GIT. But we need this migration in a way that all work will be done in GIT and the data will be synced backed to ClearCase stream. We will have the same branch names and stream names in both GIT and CC, so scripting shouldn't be a problem. The problem here is, Can someone suggest which is the best model to sync CC and GIT Have all the Vobs in CC as single repo in GIT, and have the major stream in CC as various branches in GIT. - Single GIT repo (VOBS) and many branches (CC streams). - This takes up less space as VOBs are kept as single repo with many branches. Have important CC branches as independent GIT repositories and each repository having all the CC VOBs. - Many GIT repo for many CC branch - This will take up lots of space as VOBs will be replicated across. Which do you think is the best way to keep it in sync with ClearCase

    Read the article

  • Git tutorial: Understanding git pull and branches (using a specific example repo)

    - by dreftymac
    Backround: Suppose I have the following Git URLs (hosted on github) http://github.com/mikl/drupal.git git://github.com/mikl/drupal.git (Git read-only) I am interested in having a local copy of this repository so I can pratice working with branches in git and see how my local working tree can change depending on which branch I am working with. Questions: To get started, I set up a local directory and do git clone git://github.com/mikl/drupal.git ... Will this clone all of the branches? Or will it only clone master? The web front-end for github gives me a "drop down" menu that allows me to switch branches ... Does changing this drop-down actually change which branch I will be grabbing when I run git clone? If I want a new copy of this repository on my local machine, but I am interested in only two branches of this repository and I want to ignore all the rest, what command do I use to ensure I clone only those two branches and nothing else (assume one of the branches is master)?

    Read the article

  • Can I make fast forwarding be off by default in git?

    - by Jason Baker
    I can't really ever think of a time when I would use git merge rather than git rebase and not want to have a commit show up. Is there any way to configure git to have fast forwarding off by default? The fact that there's an --ff option would seem to imply that there's a way, but I can't seem to find it in the documentation.

    Read the article

  • Find the git branch or branches from commit id

    - by Senthil A Kumar
    Hi All, Actually am try to get a report on merge conflicts. I used 'git blame' to see who has changed what line, but i couldn't find the branch and repository name information. Is there a way to find the repository name, branch name and author name of a file from 'git blame' or from commit ids' so that whenever a merge conflict occurs i can send an email to the authors who have touched that file/lines to resolve it. Thnaks Senthil A Kumar

    Read the article

  • Git: Help an SVN novice translate trunk/branch concepts to Git

    - by Jasconius
    So I am not much of a source control expert, I've used SVN for projects in the past. I have to use Git for a particular project (client supplied Git repo). My workflow is as such that I will be working on the files from two different computers, and often I need to check in changes that are unstable when I move from place to place so I can continue my work. What then occurs is when, say, the client goes to get the latest version, they will also download the unstable code. In SVN, you can address this by creating a trunk and use working branches, or use the trunk as the working version and create stable branches. What is the equivalent concept in Git, and is there a simple way to do this via Github?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >