Search Results

Search found 4296 results on 172 pages for 'git clone'.

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 41/172 | < Previous Page | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >

  • Git: Make one branch exactly like another

    - by G. Martin
    I am relatively new to Git, and I'm still not very comfortable with it. Right now, I'm looking for the command/options/magic that can make the current branch look like another branch; that is, to merge them, but when a conflict arises, to always choose the difference in the branch that is being merged into the current one. My situation is thus; I have an stable(ish) application on the "master" branch. I also have another branch, called "feature". I basically want to make changes/additions/deletions to feature until I like the new feature I'm working on. Once I feel it is ready, I want to make the master branch look identical to the feature branch. I know this probably isn't a best practice, but as I said, I'm new to Git. I plan on learning how to do more complicated things in the future, but for now, this is all I need. Thanks, SO!

    Read the article

  • Visualizing branch topology in git

    - by Benjol
    I'm playing with git in isolation on my own machine, and even like that I find it difficult to maintain a mental model of all my branches and commits. I know I can do a git log to see the commit history from where I am, but is there a way to see the entire branch topography, something like these ascii maps that seem to be used everywhere for explaining branches? .-A---M---N---O---P / / / / / I B C D E \ / / / / `-------------' It just feels like someone coming along and trying to pick up my repository would have difficulty working out exactly what was going on. I guess I'm influenced by AccuRev's stream browser...

    Read the article

  • Hosting Private Git repos on my own server?

    - by Stoic
    Hey, I am looking for a way to host private git repos on my own server. I am using Github for Open source projects of mine, but I would prefer to use my own server for storing private git repos. Can someone suggest me on which script should I be using for this purpose. Trac is not what I am looking for, though. I want something that is, preferably PHP based solution (just optional) and esp. something that has an easier UI. Any help is appreciated here.

    Read the article

  • Advantages of GitHub over Bitbucket for Git Repositories [closed]

    - by rolve
    Now that Bitbucket also supports Git repositories, it seams to me that it is a good alternative to GitHub, especially since its free plan includes unlimited private repositories, which is not available on GitHub. Yet, GitHub seams much more popular. Are there any major reasons to choose GitHub as the hosting site for Git repositories instead of Bitbucket? (Although I have no problems with making my personal projects publicly available in general, I like the idea of being able to make the switch from public to private or vice versa any time I want. But if there are some good reasons to use GitHub, I would be willing to give up this freedom.)

    Read the article

  • Correct Path for Git Remote Add from Amazon EC2 Instance to OSX Client Machine

    - by filmnut
    I'm trying to do a git remote add from a repository that sits on a remote Amazon AMI back to a cloned copy of the SAME repository that is sitting on my local OSX machine. I'm confused about what file path to use. I assume it's something like: git remote add my_clone <OSX_User_Name>@<OSX_HOST_NAME>:<PATH_TO_CLONED_REPO> I obviously know what my <OSX_User_Name> is, and I can figure out my <PATH_TO_CLONED_REPO>, but I have no idea how to determine a <OSX_HOST_NAME> that would actually work. Can I just put in my external IP address, followed by my machine's internal IP address? (Note that I'm working behind a router.) Is ssh:// the correct protocol? Do I need to set up ssh access from the Amazon EC2 machine to the local OSX machine?

    Read the article

  • How do I access a git repository on a samba share?

    - by Jason Baker
    I have a Samba share set up that I'd like to put a git repository on. I've tried searching google for the best way to use git on a Samba share, but it seems difficult to find anything on doing this as Samba uses git for development. What is the best way to do this? Right now, I'm just working with Linux, but it would be nice to know how to do this in a cross-platform manner as well.

    Read the article

  • How do I prevent apache from serving the .git directory?

    - by Shoan
    I have started using git for deployment of websites for testing. How do I prevent apache from serving the .git directory contents? I tried <Directorymatch "^/.*/\.svn/"> Order deny,allow Deny from all </Directorymatch> with no success. I know that I can create a .htaccess file in each .git directory and deny access, but I wanted something I could put into the main config file that makes this global across all websites.

    Read the article

  • how can I git-revise configs in my /etc/ dir? (sudo has different keys..)

    - by Dean Rather
    I'd like to keep some of the folders in my /etc/ dir git-revised, cause I'm quite new to server administration and am constantly messing around in my /etc/nginx/ and /etc/bind/ directories. I've heard of people git-revising their either /etc/ directories, but that seems a bit like overkill, as at this point I'm only messing in those 2 subdirectories. The problem I'm having is that if I sudo my git operations, I don't have the right pubkeys to push to my remote repo (bitbucket). But if I don't sudo, I need to mess around with all the permissions (again, not very pro at this). Does anyone know best practices for managing their configs? or how I should solve this problem? Thanks, Dean. PS. It's Ubuntu 12.04, Git, nginx, bind9, amazon aws, bitbucket...

    Read the article

  • How Do I Make A Bash Script for Git Checkin/Checkout?

    - by ServerChecker
    I was thinking of bringing up a git service on an Ubuntu server. However, the way me and another programmer operate -- we really want to try and stick to one person working on a project at a time. How would I make a Bash script to create a check in and check out with git? We want to prevent anyone from checking in code that hasn't already been checked in, and it should error out with the name of the person who has the code checked out. EDIT: I'm not really interested in using Git with its fantastic diff features. I move 100mph and don't have time to play diff games with the other developers. That's why we're using Git. If the other developers want to play the diff game, they can still do so. But when I check something out, I want it locked to everyone until I check it back in again.

    Read the article

  • Add entire 300 GB filesystem to Git Annex repository?

    - by Ryan Lester
    By default, I get an error that I have too many open files from the process. If I lift the limit manually, I get an error that I'm out of memory. For whatever reason, it seems that Git Annex in its current state is not optimised for this sort of task (adding thousands of files to a repository at once). As a possible solution, my next thought was to do something like: cd / find . -type d | git annex add --$NONRECURSIVELY find . -type f | git annex add # Need to add parent directories of each file first or adding files fails The problem with this solution is that there doesn't seem from the documentation to be a way to non-recursively add a directory in Git Annex. Is there something I'm missing or a workaround for this? If my proposed solution is a dead end, are there other ways that people have solved this problem?

    Read the article

  • How can I attach multiple urls to a single git remote?

    - by deterb
    I'm currently using git on windows through a combination of msysgit and Cygwin. I have a laptop which I move around quite a bit, so it's not on a consistent location. Unfortunately, I don't have a consistent name for it due to the computer name not being resolved on all of the locations I connect to, so I can't just use the computer name as the host for the url (e.g. git://compname/repo), so I have to use the IP address. Is there a way I can add multiple urls to pull from for a particular remote? I've seen git remote set-url --add [--push] <name> <newurl> as a way to add multiple URLs to a remote, and I can see the updates in the .git/config file, but git only tries to use the first one. Is there a way to get git to try to use all of the urls? I've tried both git fetch and git remote update, but neither tries anything after the first url. Note that I haven't tried this on linux yet, and I can't fix the computer name resolution as this is at work. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Git and cloning

    - by jriff
    Hi all! I have done an app for a client called 'A' (not really). I have found out that it is very cool and that I want to sell it to other clients also. The directory 'A' is a Git repository. I think I have a problem with cloning it. As far as I can see I need to make a copy of the dir 'A' and call it 'Generic_A'. Then delete the dir 'A' and do a "git clone Generic_A A" Then I could start changing the 'Generic_A'-repo with a generic design and all client references removed. But that is kind of the other way around. I should have started doing the generic design and then cloned the repo to change to the client specific design. Can I: make a new branch do all the changes to make the design generic create a patch that reflects the changes between the two remove the client specific branch rename the directory to 'Generic_A' clone the repo to a new dir 'A' apply the patch to get the client specific stuff back And if yes - how do I make the patch and apply it? Regards, Jacob

    Read the article

  • Could not find rake-10.1.0 in any of the sources

    - by spuder
    I've got a ruby on rails application (gitlab) which is installed via puppet. Everything on the test system runs fine, but production generates an error about rake Running /home/git/gitlab-shell/bin/check Could not find rake-10.1.0 in any of the sources Run bundle install to install missing gems. Here is the full rake check: root@gitlab:/home/git# sudo -u git -H bundle exec rake gitlab:check RAILS_ENV=production Checking Environment ... Git configured for git user? ... yes Has python2? ... yes python2 is supported version? ... yes Checking Environment ... Finished Checking GitLab Shell ... GitLab Shell version >= 1.7.1 ? ... OK (1.7.1) Repo base directory exists? ... yes Repo base directory is a symlink? ... no Repo base owned by git:git? ... yes Repo base access is drwxrws---? ... yes update hook up-to-date? ... yes update hooks in repos are links: ... Could not find rake-10.1.0 in any of the sources Run `bundle install` to install missing gems. gitlab-shell self-check failed Try fixing it: Make sure GitLab is running; Check the gitlab-shell configuration file: sudo -u git -H editor /home/git/gitlab-shell/config.yml Please fix the error above and rerun the checks. Checking GitLab Shell ... Finished Checking Sidekiq ... Running? ... yes Number of Sidekiq processes ... 1 Checking Sidekiq ... Finished Checking GitLab ... Database config exists? ... yes Database is SQLite ... no All migrations up? ... yes GitLab config exists? ... yes GitLab config outdated? ... no Log directory writable? ... yes Tmp directory writable? ... yes Init script exists? ... yes Init script up-to-date? ... yes projects have namespace: ... Spencer Owen / bar ... yes Projects have satellites? ... Spencer Owen / bar ... can't create, repository is empty Redis version >= 2.0.0? ... yes Your git bin path is "/usr/bin/git" Git version >= 1.7.10 ? ... yes (1.8.4) Checking GitLab ... Finished The step 'gitlab-shell check' effectively runs the following command. If I run that command manually, everything passes. root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# sudo -u git -H /home/git/gitlab-shell/bin/check Check GitLab API access: OK Check directories and files: /home/git/repositories: OK /home/git/.ssh/authorized_keys: OK I have verified that rake is in fact installed root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# gem install rake -v 10.1.0 root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# bundle install root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# sudo -u git -H gem install rake -v 10.1.0 root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# sudo -u git -H bundle install Ruby is installed with update alternatives root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# sudo -u git -H ruby --version ruby 1.9.3p0 (2011-10-30 revision 33570) [x86_64-linux] root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# sudo -u git -H ls -l `which ruby` lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 22 Oct 8 20:26 /usr/bin/ruby -> /etc/alternatives/ruby root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# sudo -u git -H gem --version 2.1.10 root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# sudo -u git -H ls -l `which gem` lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Oct 10 20:50 /usr/bin/gem -> /etc/alternatives/gem I've tried the solution mentioned below, to allow shared gems http://stackoverflow.com/questions/19284914/bundle-exec-fails-with-could-not-find-rake-10-1-0-in-any-of-the-sources http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18978002/could-not-find-rake-with-bundle-exec root@gitlab:/home/git/gitlab# cat /home/git/gitlab/.bundle/config --- BUNDLE_FROZEN: '1' BUNDLE_PATH: vendor/bundle BUNDLE_WITHOUT: development:test:postgres BUNDLE_DISABLE_SHARED_GEMS: '1' I've exhausted google, so I'm hoping for someone more familiar with ruby to offer any ideas how to resolve the error. Could not find rake-10.1.0 in any of the sources

    Read the article

  • Vimdiff with git mergetool error: "More than two buffers in diff mode"

    - by Elizabeth Buckwalter
    I've read Vimdiff and Viewing differences with Vimdiff plus doing various google searches using things like "vimdiff multiple", "vimdiff git", "vimdiff commands" etc. When using do or diffg I get the error "More than two buffers in diff mode, don't know which one to use". When using diffg v:fname_in I get "No matching buffer for v:fname_in". From the vimdiff documentation: :[range]diffg[et] [bufspec] Modify the current buffer to undo difference with another buffer. If [bufspec] is given, that buffer is used. If [bufspec] refers to the current buffer then nothing happens. Otherwise this only works if there is one other buffer in diff mode. and more: When 'diffexpr' is not empty, Vim evaluates to obtain a diff file in the format mentioned. These variables are set to the file names used: v:fname_in original file v:fname_new new version of the same file v:fname_out resulting diff file So, I need to get the name of bufspec, but the default variables (fname_in, fname_new, and fname_out) aren't set. I ran the command git mergetool on a linux box through a terminal.

    Read the article

  • Best practice: git, github, lighthouse and 2 developers

    - by Alxandr
    I'm setting up a new project and plan on using git and github for sourcecontroll and hosting of repo and lighthouse for bugtracking. I've been working with git for some while now, but only been using it for more of a backup solution than collaborate coding solution. Also, I've noticed that in github you can setup a servicehook to lighthouse so that whenever you push to github it notifies lighthouse of the changes. This uses a token for user-authentication and has the ability to change tickets to resolved etc. However, this token I believe functions that way so that whenever a user pushes to the repo (dosn't matter who), it's the owner of the repo that "updates" to lighthouse. This is a problem. So, I believe it is necessary with 2 separate repos at github (one for each dev), and I'm wondering about the workflow that should be used. Any1 care to shred any light on this matter? Like when to pull and push (and where), and how to make the two github repos in sync or something like that? Or another solution to the problem altogether.

    Read the article

  • git branch naming best practices

    - by skiphoppy
    I've been using a local git repository interacting with my group's CVS repository for several months, now. I've made an almost neurotic number of branches, most of which have thankfully merged back into my trunk. But naming is starting to become an issue. If I have a task easily named with a simple label, but I accomplish it in three stages which each include their own branch and merge situation, then I can repeat the branch name each time, but that makes the history a little confusing. If I get more specific in the names, with a separate description for each stage, then the branch names start to get long and unwieldy. I did learn looking through old threads here that I could start naming branches with a / in the name, i.e., topic/task, or something like that. I may start doing that and seeing if it helps keep things better organized. What are some best practices for naming git branches? Edit: Nobody has actually suggested any naming conventions. I do delete branches when I'm done with them. I just happen to have several around due to management constantly adjusting my priorities. :) As an example of why I might need more than one branch on a task, suppose I need to commit the first discrete milestone in the task to the group's CVS repository. At that point, due to my imperfect interaction with CVS, I would perform that commit and then kill that branch. (I've seen too much weirdness interacting with CVS if I try to continue to use the same branch at that point.)

    Read the article

  • git workflow incorporating many, but not all commits from many forks

    - by becomingGuru
    I have a git repo. It has been forked several times and many independent commits are made on top of it. Everything normal, like what happens in many github hosted projects. Now, what exact workflow should I follow, if I want to see all that commits individually and apply the ones I like. The workflow I followed, which is not the optimal is to create a branch of the name github-username and merge the changes into my master and undo any changes in the commit I dont need manually (there are not many, so it worked). What I want is the ability to see all commits from different forks individually and cherry pick and apply them on top of my master. What is the workflow to follow for that? And what gui (gitk?) enables me to see all different individual commits. I realize that merge should be a primary part of the workflow and not cherry-pick as it creates a different commit (from git's point of view). Even rebasing other's changes on top of mine might not preserve the history on the graph to indicate that it is his commits I have rebased. So then, How do I ignore just a few commits from a lot of them? I think github should have a "apply this commit on top of my master" thing in their graph after each commit node; so I can just pull it, after doing all that.

    Read the article

  • git crlf configuration in mixed environment

    - by Jonas Byström
    I'm running a mixed environment, and keep a central, bare repository where I pull and push most of my stuff. This centralized repository runs on Linux, and I check out to Windows XP/7, Mac and Linux. In all repositories I put the following line in my .git/config: [core] autocrlf = true I don't have the flag safecrlf=true anywhere. First time when I modify stuff on my one Windows machine (XP) there is no problem and when I look at the diff, it looks fine. But when I do the same on the other Windows machine (7), all lines are shown as changed but local line endings are \r\n as expected (when checked in a hex editor). The same applies to a MacOSX can. Sometimes I get the feeling that the different systems wrestle on line endings, but I can't be sure (I'm loosing track of all the times I change specific files). I didn't use to have the autocrlf set, but set the flag many months back. Could that be causing my current problems? Do I need to clone everything again to loose some old baggage? Or are there other things that needs configuring too? I tried git checkout -- . about a million times, but with no success.

    Read the article

  • How to automatically split git commits to separate changes to a single file

    - by Hercynium
    I'm just plain stuck as to how to accomplish this, or if it's even possible. Even it it can be done, I wonder if it could be setting us up for a messed-up, unmanageable repository. I have set up two branches of the code-base. One is "master" and the other is "prod". The HEAD of prod is always the latest code in production, and master is the main development branch. Here's the problem, though: We're converting from CVS here at $work and most of the developers are still getting used to git. Their CVS workflow involved tagging versions of individual files for production, then updating the servers using the tag. Unfortunately, this has let to sloppy practices like committing unrelated changes together and then tagging the files after-the-fact... and the devs want to know how they can do the following: In their local repos, they hack and commit to their hearts' delight, then at the end of the day, be able to run a command that takes a list of files whose commits over the day get merged with their local prod - and only those files - even if those commits combine changes to other files. I know how to split commits with git rebase --interactive, but I have no clue how I would automate splitting commits at all, never mind the way I want to. I do realize the simplest thing would be to just tell them to switch the their prod branches, checkout the files from their master branches into the working tree then commit to prod. My problem with that is losing the history of their commits over the day.

    Read the article

  • Git merge 2 new file with removed content and added content

    - by Loïc Faure-Lacroix
    So we are working in with 2 different repositories and both designers modified the same file. the problem is quite simple but I have no ideas how to solve it yet. Both files are marked as new since they have almost nothing in common except that file. When I try to merge from branch A to B it mark the parts added in A deleted in B and on the other side, what was added in B appears deleted in A. git seems to try to outsmart me when I know that I need almost every changes and nothing should be mark as deletion. I have 2 other branch that should merge without problem after these 2 branch. I can't merge them yet since there are some recent changes that may not merge really well too. I have to merge A and B = E then C and D = F and then hopefully E and F So the big question here is how can I do a completely manual merge that will mark every changes as conflict anything deleted anything added should be marked as conflict that I can solve by myself using an editor. Git is trying to outsmart me and fail terribly at it.

    Read the article

  • git commit best practices

    - by Ivan Z. Siu
    I am using git to manage a C++ project. When I am working on the projects, I find it hard to organize the changes into commits when changing things that are related to many places. For example, I may change a class interface in a .h file, which will affect the corresponding .cpp file, and also other files using it. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to put all the stuff into one big commit. Intuitively, I think the commits should be modular, each one of them corresponds to a functional update/change, so that the collaborators could pick things accordingly. But seems that sometimes it is inevitable to include lots of files and changes to make a functional change actually work. Searching did not yield me any good suggestion or tips. Hence I wonder if anyone could give me some best practices when doing commits. Thanks! PS. I've been using git for a while and I know how to interactively add/rebase/split/amend/... What I am asking is the PHILOSOPHY part.

    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 | 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48  | Next Page >