Search Results

Search found 3484 results on 140 pages for 'vendor branch'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 4/140 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • How to get the revision history of a branch with bzrlib

    - by David Planella
    I'm trying to get a list of committers to a bzr branch. I know I can get it through the command line with something along these lines: bzr log -n0 | grep committer | sed -e 's/^[[:space:]]*committer: //' | uniq However, I'd like to get that list programmatically with bzrlib. After having looked at the bzrlib documentation, I can't manage to find out how I would even get the full list of revisions from my branch. Any hints on how to get the full history of revisions from a branch with bzrlib, or ultimately, the list of committers?

    Read the article

  • Creating a 2D Line Branch (Part 2)

    - by Danran
    Yesterday i asked this question on how to create a 2D line branch; Creating a 2D Line Branch And thanks to the answered provided, i now have this nice looking main branch; *coloured to show the different segments in the final item. Now is the time now to branch things off as discussed in the article; http://drilian.com/2009/02/25/lightning-bolts/ Again however i am confused as to the meaning of the following pseudo code; splitEnd = Rotate(direction, randomSmallAngle)*lengthScale + midPoint; I'm unsure how to actually rotate this correctly. In all honesty i'm abit unsure what to-do completely at this part, "splitEnd" will be a Vector3, so whatever happens in the rotate function must then return some form of directional rotation which is then * by a scale to create length and then added to the midPoint. I'm not sure. If someone could explain what i'm meant to be doing in this part that would be really grateful.

    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 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

  • Save/restore git/cvs checkout changes when switching branches?

    - by Dale Forester
    Using cvs, git or another technique (file system level?), I would like to: Make modifications on branch A Checkout branch B: Changes to branch A are "stowed away" (by name would be nice), branch B is checked out such that my branch A changes are gone Make modifications on branch B Checkout branch A: Changes to branch B are "stowed away" (by name would be nice), branch A is checked out such that my branch B changes are gone but now my "saved" branch A changes from Step #2 are back Git-stash does not appear to fit the flow I'm describing although my impression could be wrong. Techniques involving RCS's or file system or command-line tools or otherwise are welcome.

    Read the article

  • Guidance: A Branching strategy for Scrum Teams

    - by Martin Hinshelwood
    Having a good branching strategy will save your bacon, or at least your code. Be careful when deviating from your branching strategy because if you do, you may be worse off than when you started! This is one possible branching strategy for Scrum teams and I will not be going in depth with Scrum but you can find out more about Scrum by reading the Scrum Guide and you can even assess your Scrum knowledge by having a go at the Scrum Open Assessment. You can also read SSW’s Rules to Better Scrum using TFS which have been developed during our own Scrum implementations. Acknowledgements Bill Heys – Bill offered some good feedback on this post and helped soften the language. Note: Bill is a VS ALM Ranger and co-wrote the Branching Guidance for TFS 2010 Willy-Peter Schaub – Willy-Peter is an ex Visual Studio ALM MVP turned blue badge and has been involved in most of the guidance including the Branching Guidance for TFS 2010 Chris Birmele – Chris wrote some of the early TFS Branching and Merging Guidance. Dr Paul Neumeyer, Ph.D Parallel Processes, ScrumMaster and SSW Solution Architect – Paul wanted to have feature branches coming from the release branch as well. We agreed that this is really a spin-off that needs own project, backlog, budget and Team. Scenario: A product is developed RTM 1.0 is released and gets great sales.  Extra features are demanded but the new version will have double to price to pay to recover costs, work is approved by the guys with budget and a few sprints later RTM 2.0 is released.  Sales a very low due to the pricing strategy. There are lots of clients on RTM 1.0 calling out for patches. As I keep getting Reverse Integration and Forward Integration mixed up and Bill keeps slapping my wrists I thought I should have a reminder: You still seemed to use reverse and/or forward integration in the wrong context. I would recommend reviewing your document at the end to ensure that it agrees with the common understanding of these terms merge (forward integration) from parent to child (same direction as the branch), and merge  (reverse integration) from child to parent (the reverse direction of the branch). - one of my many slaps on the wrist from Bill Heys.   As I mentioned previously we are using a single feature branching strategy in our current project. The single biggest mistake developers make is developing against the “Main” or “Trunk” line. This ultimately leads to messy code as things are added and never finished. Your only alternative is to NEVER check in unless your code is 100%, but this does not work in practice, even with a single developer. Your ADD will kick in and your half-finished code will be finished enough to pass the build and the tests. You do use builds don’t you? Sadly, this is a very common scenario and I have had people argue that branching merely adds complexity. Then again I have seen the other side of the universe ... branching  structures from he... We should somehow convince everyone that there is a happy between no-branching and too-much-branching. - Willy-Peter Schaub, VS ALM Ranger, Microsoft   A key benefit of branching for development is to isolate changes from the stable Main branch. Branching adds sanity more than it adds complexity. We do try to stress in our guidance that it is important to justify a branch, by doing a cost benefit analysis. The primary cost is the effort to do merges and resolve conflicts. A key benefit is that you have a stable code base in Main and accept changes into Main only after they pass quality gates, etc. - Bill Heys, VS ALM Ranger & TFS Branching Lead, Microsoft The second biggest mistake developers make is branching anything other than the WHOLE “Main” line. If you branch parts of your code and not others it gets out of sync and can make integration a nightmare. You should have your Source, Assets, Build scripts deployment scripts and dependencies inside the “Main” folder and branch the whole thing. Some departments within MSFT even go as far as to add the environments used to develop the product in there as well; although I would not recommend that unless you have a massive SQL cluster to house your source code. We tried the “add environment” back in South-Africa and while it was “phenomenal”, especially when having to switch between environments, the disk storage and processing requirements killed us. We opted for virtualization to skin this cat of keeping a ready-to-go environment handy. - Willy-Peter Schaub, VS ALM Ranger, Microsoft   I think people often think that you should have separate branches for separate environments (e.g. Dev, Test, Integration Test, QA, etc.). I prefer to think of deploying to environments (such as from Main to QA) rather than branching for QA). - Bill Heys, VS ALM Ranger & TFS Branching Lead, Microsoft   You can read about SSW’s Rules to better Source Control for some additional information on what Source Control to use and how to use it. There are also a number of branching Anti-Patterns that should be avoided at all costs: You know you are on the wrong track if you experience one or more of the following symptoms in your development environment: Merge Paranoia—avoiding merging at all cost, usually because of a fear of the consequences. Merge Mania—spending too much time merging software assets instead of developing them. Big Bang Merge—deferring branch merging to the end of the development effort and attempting to merge all branches simultaneously. Never-Ending Merge—continuous merging activity because there is always more to merge. Wrong-Way Merge—merging a software asset version with an earlier version. Branch Mania—creating many branches for no apparent reason. Cascading Branches—branching but never merging back to the main line. Mysterious Branches—branching for no apparent reason. Temporary Branches—branching for changing reasons, so the branch becomes a permanent temporary workspace. Volatile Branches—branching with unstable software assets shared by other branches or merged into another branch. Note   Branches are volatile most of the time while they exist as independent branches. That is the point of having them. The difference is that you should not share or merge branches while they are in an unstable state. Development Freeze—stopping all development activities while branching, merging, and building new base lines. Berlin Wall—using branches to divide the development team members, instead of dividing the work they are performing. -Branching and Merging Primer by Chris Birmele - Developer Tools Technical Specialist at Microsoft Pty Ltd in Australia   In fact, this can result in a merge exercise no-one wants to be involved in, merging hundreds of thousands of change sets and trying to get a consolidated build. Again, we need to find a happy medium. - Willy-Peter Schaub on Merge Paranoia Merge conflicts are generally the result of making changes to the same file in both the target and source branch. If you create merge conflicts, you will eventually need to resolve them. Often the resolution is manual. Merging more frequently allows you to resolve these conflicts close to when they happen, making the resolution clearer. Waiting weeks or months to resolve them, the Big Bang approach, means you are more likely to resolve conflicts incorrectly. - Bill Heys, VS ALM Ranger & TFS Branching Lead, Microsoft   Figure: Main line, this is where your stable code lives and where any build has known entities, always passes and has a happy test that passes as well? Many development projects consist of, a single “Main” line of source and artifacts. This is good; at least there is source control . There are however a couple of issues that need to be considered. What happens if: you and your team are working on a new set of features and the customer wants a change to his current version? you are working on two features and the customer decides to abandon one of them? you have two teams working on different feature sets and their changes start interfering with each other? I just use labels instead of branches? That's a lot of “what if’s”, but there is a simple way of preventing this. Branching… In TFS, labels are not immutable. This does not mean they are not useful. But labels do not provide a very good development isolation mechanism. Branching allows separate code sets to evolve separately (e.g. Current with hotfixes, and vNext with new development). I don’t see how labels work here. - Bill Heys, VS ALM Ranger & TFS Branching Lead, Microsoft   Figure: Creating a single feature branch means you can isolate the development work on that branch.   Its standard practice for large projects with lots of developers to use Feature branching and you can check the Branching Guidance for the latest recommendations from the Visual Studio ALM Rangers for other methods. In the diagram above you can see my recommendation for branching when using Scrum development with TFS 2010. It consists of a single Sprint branch to contain all the changes for the current sprint. The main branch has the permissions changes so contributors to the project can only Branch and Merge with “Main”. This will prevent accidental check-ins or checkouts of the “Main” line that would contaminate the code. The developers continue to develop on sprint one until the completion of the sprint. Note: In the real world, starting a new Greenfield project, this process starts at Sprint 2 as at the start of Sprint 1 you would have artifacts in version control and no need for isolation.   Figure: Once the sprint is complete the Sprint 1 code can then be merged back into the Main line. There are always good practices to follow, and one is to always do a Forward Integration from Main into Sprint 1 before you do a Reverse Integration from Sprint 1 back into Main. In this case it may seem superfluous, but this builds good muscle memory into your developer’s work ethic and means that no bad habits are learned that would interfere with additional Scrum Teams being added to the Product. The process of completing your sprint development: The Team completes their work according to their definition of done. Merge from “Main” into “Sprint1” (Forward Integration) Stabilize your code with any changes coming from other Scrum Teams working on the same product. If you have one Scrum Team this should be quick, but there may have been bug fixes in the Release branches. (we will talk about release branches later) Merge from “Sprint1” into “Main” to commit your changes. (Reverse Integration) Check-in Delete the Sprint1 branch Note: The Sprint 1 branch is no longer required as its useful life has been concluded. Check-in Done But you are not yet done with the Sprint. The goal in Scrum is to have a “potentially shippable product” at the end of every Sprint, and we do not have that yet, we only have finished code.   Figure: With Sprint 1 merged you can create a Release branch and run your final packaging and testing In 99% of all projects I have been involved in or watched, a “shippable product” only happens towards the end of the overall lifecycle, especially when sprints are short. The in-between releases are great demonstration releases, but not shippable. Perhaps it comes from my 80’s brain washing that we only ship when we reach the agreed quality and business feature bar. - Willy-Peter Schaub, VS ALM Ranger, Microsoft Although you should have been testing and packaging your code all the way through your Sprint 1 development, preferably using an automated process, you still need to test and package with stable unchanging code. This is where you do what at SSW we call a “Test Please”. This is first an internal test of the product to make sure it meets the needs of the customer and you generally use a resource external to your Team. Then a “Test Please” is conducted with the Product Owner to make sure he is happy with the output. You can read about how to conduct a Test Please on our Rules to Successful Projects: Do you conduct an internal "test please" prior to releasing a version to a client?   Figure: If you find a deviation from the expected result you fix it on the Release branch. If during your final testing or your “Test Please” you find there are issues or bugs then you should fix them on the release branch. If you can’t fix them within the time box of your Sprint, then you will need to create a Bug and put it onto the backlog for prioritization by the Product owner. Make sure you leave plenty of time between your merge from the development branch to find and fix any problems that are uncovered. This process is commonly called Stabilization and should always be conducted once you have completed all of your User Stories and integrated all of your branches. Even once you have stabilized and released, you should not delete the release branch as you would with the Sprint branch. It has a usefulness for servicing that may extend well beyond the limited life you expect of it. Note: Don't get forced by the business into adding features into a Release branch instead that indicates the unspoken requirement is that they are asking for a product spin-off. In this case you can create a new Team Project and branch from the required Release branch to create a new Main branch for that product. And you create a whole new backlog to work from.   Figure: When the Team decides it is happy with the product you can create a RTM branch. Once you have fixed all the bugs you can, and added any you can’t to the Product Backlog, and you Team is happy with the result you can create a Release. This would consist of doing the final Build and Packaging it up ready for your Sprint Review meeting. You would then create a read-only branch that represents the code you “shipped”. This is really an Audit trail branch that is optional, but is good practice. You could use a Label, but Labels are not Auditable and if a dispute was raised by the customer you can produce a verifiable version of the source code for an independent party to check. Rare I know, but you do not want to be at the wrong end of a legal battle. Like the Release branch the RTM branch should never be deleted, or only deleted according to your companies legal policy, which in the UK is usually 7 years.   Figure: If you have made any changes in the Release you will need to merge back up to Main in order to finalise the changes. Nothing is really ever done until it is in Main. The same rules apply when merging any fixes in the Release branch back into Main and you should do a reverse merge before a forward merge, again for the muscle memory more than necessity at this stage. Your Sprint is now nearly complete, and you can have a Sprint Review meeting knowing that you have made every effort and taken every precaution to protect your customer’s investment. Note: In order to really achieve protection for both you and your client you would add Automated Builds, Automated Tests, Automated Acceptance tests, Acceptance test tracking, Unit Tests, Load tests, Web test and all the other good engineering practices that help produce reliable software.     Figure: After the Sprint Planning meeting the process begins again. Where the Sprint Review and Retrospective meetings mark the end of the Sprint, the Sprint Planning meeting marks the beginning. After you have completed your Sprint Planning and you know what you are trying to achieve in Sprint 2 you can create your new Branch to develop in. How do we handle a bug(s) in production that can’t wait? Although in Scrum the only work done should be on the backlog there should be a little buffer added to the Sprint Planning for contingencies. One of these contingencies is a bug in the current release that can’t wait for the Sprint to finish. But how do you handle that? Willy-Peter Schaub asked an excellent question on the release activities: In reality Sprint 2 starts when sprint 1 ends + weekend. Should we not cater for a possible parallelism between Sprint 2 and the release activities of sprint 1? It would introduce FI’s from main to sprint 2, I guess. Your “Figure: Merging print 2 back into Main.” covers, what I tend to believe to be reality in most cases. - Willy-Peter Schaub, VS ALM Ranger, Microsoft I agree, and if you have a single Scrum team then your resources are limited. The Scrum Team is responsible for packaging and release, so at least one run at stabilization, package and release should be included in the Sprint time box. If more are needed on the current production release during the Sprint 2 time box then resource needs to be pulled from Sprint 2. The Product Owner and the Team have four choices (in order of disruption/cost): Backlog: Add the bug to the backlog and fix it in the next Sprint Buffer Time: Use any buffer time included in the current Sprint to fix the bug quickly Make time: Remove a Story from the current Sprint that is of equal value to the time lost fixing the bug(s) and releasing. Note: The Team must agree that it can still meet the Sprint Goal. Cancel Sprint: Cancel the sprint and concentrate all resource on fixing the bug(s) Note: This can be a very costly if the current sprint has already had a lot of work completed as it will be lost. The choice will depend on the complexity and severity of the bug(s) and both the Product Owner and the Team need to agree. In this case we will go with option #2 or #3 as they are uncomplicated but severe bugs. Figure: Real world issue where a bug needs fixed in the current release. If the bug(s) is urgent enough then then your only option is to fix it in place. You can edit the release branch to find and fix the bug, hopefully creating a test so it can’t happen again. Follow the prior process and conduct an internal and customer “Test Please” before releasing. You can read about how to conduct a Test Please on our Rules to Successful Projects: Do you conduct an internal "test please" prior to releasing a version to a client?   Figure: After you have fixed the bug you need to ship again. You then need to again create an RTM branch to hold the version of the code you released in escrow.   Figure: Main is now out of sync with your Release. We now need to get these new changes back up into the Main branch. Do a reverse and then forward merge again to get the new code into Main. But what about the branch, are developers not working on Sprint 2? Does Sprint 2 now have changes that are not in Main and Main now have changes that are not in Sprint 2? Well, yes… and this is part of the hit you take doing branching. But would this scenario even have been possible without branching?   Figure: Getting the changes in Main into Sprint 2 is very important. The Team now needs to do a Forward Integration merge into their Sprint and resolve any conflicts that occur. Maybe the bug has already been fixed in Sprint 2, maybe the bug no longer exists! This needs to be identified and resolved by the developers before they continue to get further out of Sync with Main. Note: Avoid the “Big bang merge” at all costs.   Figure: Merging Sprint 2 back into Main, the Forward Integration, and R0 terminates. Sprint 2 now merges (Reverse Integration) back into Main following the procedures we have already established.   Figure: The logical conclusion. This then allows the creation of the next release. By now you should be getting the big picture and hopefully you learned something useful from this post. I know I have enjoyed writing it as I find these exploratory posts coupled with real world experience really help harden my understanding.  Branching is a tool; it is not a silver bullet. Don’t over use it, and avoid “Anti-Patterns” where possible. Although the diagram above looks complicated I hope showing you how it is formed simplifies it as much as possible.   Technorati Tags: Branching,Scrum,VS ALM,TFS 2010,VS2010

    Read the article

  • Telerik Becomes the First Vendor to Offer Reporting for All .Net Desktop and Web Platforms

    Telerik adds a new WPF Report Viewer to its reporting solution making it thefirst tool to supportall .NET desktop and web platforms:ASP.NET, Silverlight, Windows Forms, and WPF Telerik, a leading vendor of developer tools and UI components for .NET,isthe first vendor to offer built-in support for report rendering in all .NET desktop and web platformswith the addition of a WPF Report Viewer to their product Telerik Reporting. Telerik Reportingis a lightweight embedded .NET reporting solution, which...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Git push current branch to a remote with Heroku

    - by cmaughan
    I'm trying to create a staging branch on Heroku, but there's something I don't quite get. Assuming I've already created a heroku app and setup the remote to point to staging-remote, If I do: git checkout -b staging staging-remote/master I get a local branch called 'staging' which tracks staging-remote/master - or that's what I thought.... But: git remote show staging-remote Gives me this: remote staging Fetch URL: [email protected]:myappname.git Push URL: [email protected]:myappname.git HEAD branch: master Remote branch: master tracked Local branch configured for 'git pull': staging-remote merges with remote master Local ref configured for 'git push': master pushes to master (up to date) As you can see, the pull looks reasonable, but the default push does not. It implies that if I do: git push staging-remote I'm going to push my local master branch up to the staging branch. But that's not what I want.... Basically, I want to merge updates into my staging branch, then easily push it to heroku without having to specify the branch like so: git push staging-remote mybranch:master The above isn't hard to do, but I want to avoid accidentally doing the previous push and pushing the wrong branch... This is doubly important for the production branch I'd like to create! I've tried messing with git config, but haven't figured out how to get this right yet...

    Read the article

  • Does deleting a branch in git remove it from the history?

    - by Ken Liu
    Coming from svn, just starting to become familiar with git. When a branch is deleted in git, is it removed from the history? In svn, you can easily recover a branch by reverting the delete operation (reverse merge). Like all deletes in svn, the branch is never really deleted, it's just removed from the current tree. If the branch is actually deleted from the history in git, what happens to the changes that were merged from that branch? Are they retained?

    Read the article

  • How do I determine what branch/tag I have checked out in git?

    - by Avry
    I clone my source using git clone https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/p/mediawiki/core.git w/. Then I specify a specific branch/tag by doing git checkout <tag name> or git checkout origin/REL<release number>. Sometimes I forget what branch or tag I'm on. In SVN I would do a svn info to figure out what branch/tag I'm using (I realize that git has distinct definitions for branch and tag but for my purposes they are the same). How do I determine what branch/tag I am on?

    Read the article

  • Committing to a different branch with commit -r

    - by Amarghosh
    Does CVS allow committing a file to a different branch than the one it was checked out from? The man page and some sites suggest that we can do a cvs ci -r branch-1 file.c but it gives the following error: cvs commit: Up-to-date check failed for `file.c' cvs [commit aborted]: correct above errors first! I did a cvs diff -r branch-1 file.c to make sure that contents of file.c in my BASE and branch-1 are indeed the same. I know that we can manually check out using cvs co -r branch-1, merge the main branch to it (and fix any merge issues) and then do a check in. The problem is that there are a number of branches and I would like to automate things using a script. This thread seems to suggest that -r has been removed. Can someone confirm that? If ci -r is not supported, I am thinking of doing something like: Make sure the branch versions and base version are the same with a cvs diff Check in to the current branch Keep a copy of the file in a temp file For each branch: Check out from branch with -r replace the file with the temp file Check in (it'll go the branch as -r is sticky) Delete the temp file The replacing part sounds like cheating to me - can you think of any potential issues that might occur? Anything I should be careful about? Is there any other way to automate this process?

    Read the article

  • Branch prediction , correlation bit

    - by Maciej Adrzej
    Problem ; Consider following simplified code fragment; if (d==0) d=1; if (d==1) ... Construct the action table for the 1-bit predictor with 1-bit correlation assuming predictor initialized to NOT TAKEN and the correlation bit is initialized to TAKEN. The value of d alternates 1,2,1,2 Note count the instances of misprediction. I tried to solve question my answer is ; |d=?|B1 |B1 |New B1 |B2 |B2 | New B2 | | |Prediction|Action|Prediction|Prediction|Action|Prediction| |1 | NT/NT | T | T/NT | NT/NT | NT | NT/NT | |2 | T/NT | T | T/NT | NT/NT | T | NT/T | |1 | T/NT | T | T/NT | NT/T | NT | NT/NT | |2 | T/NT | T | T/NT | NT/NT | T | NT/T | I doubt whether it is true or not ? Any idea ?

    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

  • Accessing DHCP Client's vendor-encapsulated-options

    - by Jason Owen
    In the dhcpd.conf file for isc-dhcpd-V3.1.1, I have set up a vendor options space and defined several different options. I am able to use those definitions to send options from the server to the client in the vendor-encapsulated-options option (code 43). However, the client is also sending vendor options back to the server, in the same way, and I'd like to respond differently depending on the type and contents of the options. As far as I can tell, the the server isn't parsing the client's vendor-encapsulated-options at all - the option operator is just returning null. Is there a way to get the server to populate the options in the vendor space I've defined?

    Read the article

  • Gerrit, git and reviewing whole branch

    - by liori
    I'm now learning Gerrit (which is the first code review tool I use). Gerrit requires a reviewed change to consist of a single commit. My feature branch has about 10 commits. The gerrit-prefered way is to squash those 10 commits into a single one. However this way if the commit will be merged into the target branch, the internal history of that feature branch will be lost. For example, I won't be able to use git-bisect to bisect into those commits. Am I right? I am a little bit worried about this state of things. What is the rationale for this choice? Is there any way of doing this in Gerrit without losing history?

    Read the article

  • Launchpad dailybuild source in subdirectory of branch

    - by Jared
    I have a repo branch that i have mirrored in Launchpad that I am trying to setup a daily build. The problem is that the source directory of the package is a subdirectory in the branch. When building locally it's no problem because I can just change to that directory. However with launchpad's bzr-builder it does everything from the top directory in the branch. My current build recipe is: # bzr-builder format 0.3 deb-version {debupstream}-{revno}-{revno:packaging} lp:kegbot nest-part packaging lp:~szechyjs/kegbot/kegbot_debian debian debian Ideally I would use lp:kegbot/pykeg but this is not possible in bzr. Is there a easy way I can build the package in the kegbot/pykeg directory, by setting it up in my recipe or some kind of source directory variable in the rules file?

    Read the article

  • git changing head not reflected on co-dev's branch

    - by stevekrzysiak
    Basically, we undid history. I know this is bad, and I am already committed to avoiding this at all costs in the future, but what is done is done. Anyway, I issued a git push origin <1_week_old_sha:master to undo some bad commits. I then deleted a buggered branch called release(which had also received some bad commits) from remote and then branched a new release off master. I pushed this to remote. So basically, remote master & release are clones and just how I want them. The issue is if I clone the repo anew(or work in my current repo) everything looks great....but when my co-devs delete their release branch and create a new one based off the new remote release I created, they still see all the old junk I tried to remove. I feel this has to do with some local .git files mistaking the new branch release for the old release. Any thoughts? Thanks.

    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

  • Fundamentals of Vendor Management

    Creating and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships with external vendors is one of the pillars of good project management. Dwain Camps goes through what to expect and allow in your client-vendor relationship during the various stages of a given project to ensure its success and secure that all important win-win outcome. Save 45% on our top SQL Server database administration tools. Together they make up the SQL DBA Bundle, which supports your core tasks and helps your day run smoothly. Download a free trial now.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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