Search Results

Search found 988 results on 40 pages for 'branching and merging'.

Page 4/40 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Mercurial Branching Model for task features

  - by Stan

  My development env: Windows 7, TortoiseHg, ASP.NET 4.0/MVC3 Test branch: code on test server Prod branch: code on production server This is my current branching model. The reason to branch out every task (feature) is because some features go to live slower. So in above graph, task 1 finished earlier (changeset #5), and merge into test branch for testing. However, due to bug or modification of original request, changesets #10, #12 have been made. While task 2 has finished testing #8 and pushed to live #9 already. My problem is every time when modifying task branch (like #10, #12), I have to do another merge to test branch (#11, #13), this makes the graph very messy. Is there any way to solve this issue? Or any better branching model?

  Read the article

• Merging /boot and rearranging grub2 entries

  - by Tobias Kienzler

  I have used 10.10 and now for testing purposes installed 10.04 to a separate partition. 10.10 is currently on a single partition, while for 10.04 I decided to separate /boot to a third partition. Now my questions: How can I move and merge 10.10's /boot on the new /boot partition What do I have to modify to rearrange the (automatic) entries? How can I have the entries contain the distribution name to reduce confusion? How can I make sure the grub configuration stays identical when either distribution updates?

  Read the article

• Merging /boot and rearring grub2 entries

  - by Tobias Kienzler

  I have used 10.10 and now for testing purposes installed 10.04 to a separate partition. 10.10 is currently on a single partition, while for 10.04 I decided to separate /boot to a third partition. Now my questions: How can I move and merge 10.10's /boot on the new /boot partition What do I have to modify to rearrange the (automatic) entries? How can I have the entries contain the distribution name to reduce confusion? How can I make sure the grub configuration stays identical?

  Read the article

• SEO consequences for merging country sites in a .com

  - by Pekka

  I am in the process of refactoring a number of rental portals I've built for a company with locations in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Instead of the current setting of each country site running under its own domain name: www.companyname.de www.companyname.ch www.companyname.at I would love to merge them all in this way: www.companyname.com/de www.companyname.com/ch www.companyname.com/at with the country TLDs doing a 301 redirect to the respective .com address. However, I have been repeatedly told not to do this due to likely problems with SEO - the business is very SEO dependent, and being a rental chain, needs to be strong in local results. So the question is: Is there an unavoidable hit in Search Engine Optimization when redirecting to a central .com domain? What measures can be taken to soften the blow? What comes to my mind is explicitly specifying a lang attribute in the html tag. Are there any other ways to specifically point out geographical location for sub-directories?

  Read the article

• SEO consequences for merging country sites in a .com

  - by Pekka

  I am in the process of refactoring a number of rental portals I've built for a company with locations in Austria, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands. Instead of the current setting of each country site running under its own domain name: www.companyname.de www.companyname.ch www.companyname.at I would love to merge them all in this way: www.companyname.com/de www.companyname.com/ch www.companyname.com/at with the country TLDs doing a 301 redirect to the respective .com address. However, I have been repeatedly told not to do this due to likely problems with SEO - the business is very SEO dependent, and being a rental chain, needs to be strong in local results. So the question is: Is there an unavoidable hit in Search Engine Optimization when redirecting to a central .com domain? What measures can be taken to soften the blow? What comes to my mind is explicitly specifying a lang attribute in the html tag. Are there any other ways to specifically point out geographical location for sub-directories?

  Read the article

• "merging" multiple hardrives for Ubuntu 14.04 install

  - by Thijser

  I have 3 hardrives inside my laptop 2 of which currently house other opperating systems but have a empty partitions of 8 and 9 gigabye and the third is just 12 gB (currently not partitioned at all). Now each of these 3 is to small to be useful to me, however combined they are 29gigs which can easily hold a ubuntu installation, and associated programs. Is there a way set up my installation in such a way that it threads these 3 disks as one? Or is there a way by which I can make it default storage of many things into one drive (downloads and sudo apt-get install for example) to one drive while keeping ubuntu onto another?

  Read the article

• nautilus crash when merging/overwriting files

  - by sBlatt

  On my Ubuntu 10.10, whenever I want to copy some files/folders over some other files/folders, or when I try to empty the trash, nautilus crashes! Example: I have a folder with some files. Now I want to overwrite this folder with a folder with the same name, same files, but some additional files, the merge window comes up, I choose merge and nautilus crashes (does not respond, when I press the close button I can force close it). Some times it even does the copying/emptying (trash), but it always crashes! This happens when copying to the same partition/ntfs partition/netshares, but not when I make a new folder and copy the files/folders into that (without overwriting anything). On a netshare, it's even possible to merge these files afterwards with another computer! dmesg/syslog/messages does not show any entry related to that problem. Does anyone have a solution for this very annoying problem? EDIT: dpkg -l nautilus* (see output in pastebin) EDIT2: I found out, nautilus already crashes before clicking replace/merge (as soon as the question appeares. In the video it's not entirely clear, that i click the cross before the force-close dialog appeares. Video of problem nautilus-debug-log.txt EDIT3: Filed bugreport: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/nautilus/+bug/678233

  Read the article

• Merging the Executive Committees

  - by Patrick Curran

  As I explained in this blog last year, we use the Process to change the Process. The first of three planned JSRs to modify the way the JCP operates (JSR 348: Towards a new version of the Java Community Process) completed in October 2011. That JSR focused on changes to make our process more transparent and to enable broader participation. The second JSR was inspired by our conviction that Java is One Platform and by our expectation that Java ME and Java SE will become more aligned over time. In anticipation of this change JSR 355: JCP Executive Committee Merge will merge the two Executive Committees into one. The JSR is going very well. We have reached consensus within the Executive Committees, which serve as the Expert Group for process-change JSRs. How we intend to make the transition to a single EC is explained in the revised versions of the Process and EC Standing Rules documents that are currently posted for Early Draft Review. Our intention is to reduce the total number of EC seats but to keep the same ratio (2:1) of ratified and elected seats. Briefly, the plan will be implemented in two stages. The October 2012 elections will be held as usual, but candidates will be informed that they will serve only a one-year term if elected. The two ECs will be merged immediately after this election; at the same time, Oracle's second permanent seat and one of IBM's two ratified seats will be eliminated. The initial merged EC will therefore have 30 members. In the October 2013 elections we will eliminate three more ratified seats and two elected seats, thereby reducing the size of the combined EC to 25 members (16 ratified seats, 8 elected seats, plus Oracle's permanent seat.) All remaining seats, including those of members who were elected in 2012, will be up for re-election in 2013; that election should be particularly interesting. Starting in 2013 we will change from a three-year to a two-year election cycle (half of all EC members will be up for re-election each year.) We believe that these changes will streamline our operations, and position us for a future in which the distinctions between desktop and mobile devices become increasingly blurred. Please take this opportunity to review and comment on our proposed changes - we appreciate your input. Thank you, and onward to JCP.next.3!

  Read the article

• Concerns Over Merging Drivers Back Into The X Server

  <b>Phoronix:</b> "While development efforts within the X.Org community are now ramping up for the release of X Server 1.9 that should arrive in August, there is an ongoing discussion concerning a planned long-term change for the X Server: pulling the drivers back in."

  Read the article

• Your mail merging options with Thunderbird

  <b>Worldlabel:</b> "If you use the open source Mozilla Thunderbird email client, you're probably familiar with its powerful address book features: import and export, online status information for your friends, even synchronization. But one thing that's not so obvious is how to do a mail merge to your address book contacts."

  Read the article

• Merging XML Files with XStreamingElement

  Got a few Gigs of XML data you need to combine? Here's one way that won't blow your RAM.

  Read the article

• SVN supports historical merges so how is Mercurial better?

  - by radman

  Hi, I'm a long time SVN user and have been hearing a lot of brou ha ha with regard to mercurial and decentralised version control systems in general. The main touted feature that I am aware of is that merging in Mercurial is much easier because it records information for each merge so each successive merge is aware of the previous ones. Now as stated in the red book, in the section to do with merging, SVN already supports this with mergeinfo. Now I have not actually used this feature (although I wanted to, our repo version wasn't recent enough) but is this SVN feature particularly different to what Mercurial offers? For anyone who is not aware the suggested work flow for historical merging in svn is this: branch from the development trunk to do your own thing. Regularly merge changes from trunk into your branch to stay up to date. Merge back when your done with the mergeinfo to smooth the process. Without historical data merging this is a nightmare because the comparison is strictly on the differences in the files and does not take into account the steps taken on the way. So each change in the development trunk puts you further into possible conflict when you merge back. Now what I would like to know is: Does merging using Mercurial provide a significant advantage when compared with mergeinfo in SVN or is this just a lot of hot air about nothing? Has anyone used the mergeinfo feature in SVN and how good is it actually in practice?

  Read the article

• What's the best version control/QA workflow for a legacy system?

  - by John Cromartie

  I am struggling to find a good balance with our development and testing process. We use Git right now, and I am convinced that ReinH's Git Workflow For Agile Teams is not just great for capital-A Agile, but for pretty much any team on DVCS. That's what I've tried to implement but it's just not catching. We have a large legacy system with a complex environment, hundreds of outstanding and undiscovered defects, and no real good way to set up a test environment with realistic data. It's also hard to release updates without disrupting users. Most of all, it's hard to do thorough QA with this process... and we need thorough testing with this legacy system. I feel like we can't really pull off anything as slick as the Git workflow outlined in the link. What's the way to do it?

  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 refactor when all your development is on branches?

  - by Mark

  At my company, all of our development (bug fixes and new features) is done on separate branches. When it's complete, we send it off to QA who tests it on that branch, and when they give us the green light, we merge it into our main branch. This could take anywhere between a day and a year. If we try to squeeze any refactoring in on a branch, we don't know how long it will be "out" for, so it can cause many conflicts when it's merged back in. For example, let's say I want to rename a function because the feature I'm working on is making heavy use of this function, and I found that it's name doesn't really fit its purpose (again, this is just an example). So I go around and find every usage of this function, and rename them all to its new name, and everything works perfectly, so I send it off to QA. Meanwhile, new development is happening, and my renamed function doesn't exist on any of the branches that are being forked off main. When my issue gets merged back in, they're all going to break. Is there any way of dealing with this? It's not like management will ever approve a refactor-only issue so it has to be squeezed in with other work. It can't be developed directly on main because all changes have to go through QA and no one wants to be the jerk that broke main so that he could do a little bit of non-essential refactoring.

  Read the article

• Is it a good practice to use branches to maintain different editions of the same software?

  - by Tamás Szelei

  We have a product that has a few different editions. The differences are minor: different strings here and there, very little additional logic in one, very little difference in logic in the other. When the software is being developed, most changes need to be added to each edition; however, there are a few that don't and a few that needs to differ. Is it a valid use of branches if I have release-editionA and release-editionB (..etc) branches? Are there any gotchas? Good practices? Update: Thanks for the insight everyone, lots of good answers here. The general consensus seems to be that it is a bad idea to use branches for this purpose. For anyone wondering, my final solution to the problem is to externalize strings as configuration, and externalize the differing logic as plugins or scripts.

  Read the article

• dvcs - is "clone to branch" a common workflow?

  - by Tesserex

  I was recently discussing dvcs with a coworker, because our office is beginning to consider switching from TFS (we're a MS shop). In the process, I got very confused because he said that although he uses Mercurial, he hadn't heard of a "branch" or "checkout" command, and these terms were unfamiliar to him. After wondering how it was possible that he didn't know about them and explaining how dvcs branches work "in place" on your local files, he was quite confused. He explained that, similar to how TFS works, when he wants to create a "branch" he does it by cloning, so he has an entire copy of his repo. This seemed really strange to me, but the benefit, which I have to concede, is that you can look at or work on two branches simultaneously because the files are separate. In searching this site to see if this has been asked before I saw a comment that many online resources promote this "clone to branch" methodology, to the poster's dismay. Is this actually common in the dvcs community? And what are some of the pros and cons of going this way? I would never do it since I have no need to see multiple branches at once, switching is fast, and I don't need all the clones filling up my disk.

  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

• Importing an existing project into Git

  - by Andy

  Background During the course of developing our site (ASP.NET), we discovered that our existing source control (SourceGear Vault) wasn't working for us. So, we decided to migrate to Git. The translation has been less than smooth though. Our site is broken up into three environments DEV, QA, and PROD. For tho most part, DEV and the source control repo have been in sync with each other. There is one branch in the repo, if a page was going to be moved up to QA then the file was moved manually, same thing with stuff that was ready for PROD. So, our current QA and PROD environments do not correspond to any particular commit in the master branch. Clarification: The QA and PROD branches are not currently, nor have they ever been in source control. The Question How do I move QA and PROD into Git? Should I forget about the history we've maintained up to this point and start over with a new repo? I could start with everything on PROD, then make a branch and pull in everything from QA, and then make another branch off of that with DEV. That way not only will the branches reflect the differences in the environments, they'll be in the right order chronologically with the newest commits in the DEV branch. What I've tried so far I thought about creating a QA branch off of the current master and using robocopy to make the working folder look like the current QA environment. This doesn't work because the new commit from QA will remove new files from DEV and that will remove them when we merge up, I suspect there will be similar problems if I started QA at an earlier (though not exact) commit from DEV.

  Read the article

• Git doesn't sync files until committed, even if checked out in a different branch

  - by DertWaiter

  Okay, I have git 1.7.11.1 on Windows and I have a local test repository with 2 branches. One is master with index.php and help.php. I then create another branch called slave :) I run from git bash rm help.php and it disappears from the folder, but I don't stage anything. I switch to checkout master branch and it is supposed to restore file help.php because it is not modified in the master branch, isn't it? And it does not do it. When I go back to the slave branch and commit and then switch to checkout master then help.php appears. Is that the way it is supposed to to work? Why?

  Read the article

• Git Branch Model for iOS projects with one developer

  - by glenwayguy

  I'm using git for an iOS project, and so far have the following branch model: feature_brach(usually multiple) -> development -> testing -> master Feature-branches are short-lived, just used to add a feature or bug, then merged back in to development and deleted. Development is fairly stable, but not ready for production. Testing is when we have a stable version with enough features for a new update, and we ship to beta testers. Once testing is finished, it can be moved back into development or advanced into master. The problem, however, lies in the fact that we can't instantly deploy. On iOS, it can be several weeks between the time a build is released and when it actually hits users. I always want to have a version of the code that is currently on the market in my repo, but I also have to have a place to keep the current stable code to be sent for release. So: where should I keep stable code where should I keep the code currently on the market and where should I keep the code that is in review with Apple, and will be (hopefully) put on the market soon? Also, this is a one developer team, so collaboration is not totally necessary, but preferred because there may be more members in the future.

  Read the article

• Git dont sync files untill committed even if checkout different branch

  - by DertWaiter

  Ok i have git 1.7.11.1 on windows and i have local test reposotory with 2 branches one is master with index.php help.php then i create another branch called slave :) I run from git bash rm help.php and it dissapears from the folder, but i dont stage anything. I switch to checkout master branch and it supposed to restore file help.php because its not modified in master branch isnt it? And it does not do it. When i back to slave branch and commit and then switch to checkout master then help.php appears. is that the way it supposed to be why?

  Read the article

• Version control and branching when using Oracle

  - by Ed Woodcock

  Hi folks: At work we're using Oracle and C#/ASP.net to handle a customer's website, this site is very large-scale so the database is very large. We use Perforce for our version control, and tack create or replace scripts to FogBugz cases whenever a database change, which has been fine until now, as we are now at a point where five developers are working on five expansions for the system, each on a seperate Perforce branch. Unfortunately, we cannot get duplicate databases, due to the database size, so everyone is still working from the same one. This is obviously a cause of problems: only ten minutes ago we had a bit of an issue where a stored procedure change for a branch propagated over to the Pre-Production server and caused a large number of crashes for the testers. Ideally, we would like a way to track these changes without having to manually keep track of them through FogBugz. My question is: how do you lot handle this situation? I'm sure there must be a good way by now to handle versioning, or at least tracking changes, in an Oracle database.

  Read the article

• Removing part of a branch

  - by benPearce

  In our codebase we are using the following structure, using TFS / - Build - Development - Dev1 - Dev2 - Main - Releases - Rel1 - Rel2 The Development and Releases sections contain branches off main. The Build section sits outside the branching. Within each of the branches there is a section which should not have been included within the branching which I would like to move under Build. Is it possible to move this section out and remove its branching information? If I do a rename what impact might this have when creating new branches or merging?

  Read the article

• CM synergy file merging

  - by Ravisha

  I am using CM Synergy 6.4.3410 version And each time i do a code change ,if some one else does check in on same file its nightmare We need to reconcile it and take latest version from server then manually do the merging and check in . There is an option for merge in reconcile window,but it actually creates a parallel version. I have found out that Synergy does not do a smart merge.Even though the changes done are in different lines of the file

  Read the article

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