Search Results

Search found 2940 results on 118 pages for 'git'.

Page 42/118 | < Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >

• heroku using git branch is confusing!

  - by Stacia

  Ok, so I have a big github project that i'm not supposed to merge my little Stacia branch into. However, it seems like Heroku only takes pushing MASTER seriously. It looks like I pushed my branch, but for example if I only have my branch, it even acts like there's no code on the server. I can't even get my gems installed since the .gems file is on my branch. Basically I don't even want Heroku to know there's a master. I just want to use my test Stacia branch. But it keeps ignoring my local branch. Is there a way to do this? And again, I don't want to overwrite anything on the main Github repository (eeek!) but it would be ok probably if I had both master and my branch on heroku and merged them there. I am a total git novice (on windows no less) so please bear with me.

  Read the article

• Git pre-receive hook

  - by Ralphz

  Hi When you enable pre-receive hook for git repository: It takes no arguments, but for each ref to be updated it receives on standard input a line of the format: < old-value SP < new-value SP < ref-name LF where < old-value is the old object name stored in the ref, < new-value is the new object name to be stored in the ref and is the full name of the ref. When creating a new ref, < old-value is 40 0. Does anyone can explain me how do I examine all the files that will be changed in the repository if i allow this commit? I'd like to run that files through some scripts to check syntax and so on. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Excluding files from being deployed with Capistrano while still under version control with Git

  - by Jimmy Cuadra

  I want to start testing the JavaScript in my Rails apps with qUnit and I'm wondering how to keep the test JavaScript and test runner HTML page under version control (I'm using Git, of course) but keep them off the production server when I deploy the app with Capistrano. My first thought is to let Capistrano send all the code over as usual including the test files, and write a task to delete them at the end of the deployment process. This seems like sort of a hack, though. Is there a cleaner way to tell Capistrano to ignore certain parts of the repository when deploying?

  Read the article

• Git pack file entry format

  - by Ben Collins

  My understanding of the Git pack file format is something like: Where the table is 32-bits wide, and the first three 32-bit words are the pack file header. The last row of 32 bits are the first 4 bytes of an entry. As I understand it, the size of the entry is specified by consecutive bytes with the MSB set, followed by compressed data. In the first byte whose MSB is not set, is the MSB part of the compressed data, or is it a gap? If it's part of the compressed data, how can you guarantee that when the data is compressed that bit won't be set?

  Read the article

• Change the current branch to master in git

  - by Karel Bílek

  I have a repository in git. I made a branch, then did some changes both to the master and to the branch. Then, tens of commits later, I realized the branch is in much better state than the master, so I want the branch to "become" the master and disregard the changes on master. I cannot merge it, because I don't want to keep the changes on master. What should I do? (this will very possibly be a duplicate question, since it is trivial, but I have not found it here)

  Read the article

• How to safely backport specific linux kernel commits to an older kernel using git

  - by superc0w

  I'm currently on a stable 2.6.32 kernel. But I need certain fixes on 2.6.33 branch to be incorporated into this 2.6.32 kernel so that I can create a custom kernel for testing purposes. I can't apply the said fixes directly to the 2.6.32 source because they seem to have dependencies on other fixes. Is there any safe way to incorporate only the fixes (and all their dependencies) I need into the 2.6.32 kernel with git to create a custom kernel? Assuming there is a way to do the above, is there a way to track the fixes that have been applied to the custom kernel (i.e. track which commits have been applied to the 2.6.32 kernel to create the custom kernel source)?

  Read the article

• Git: how do you merge with remote repo?

  - by Marco

  Please help me understand how git works. I clone my remote repository on two different machines. I edit the same file on both machines. I successfully commit and push the update from the first machine to the remote repository. I then try to push the update on the second machine, but get an error: ! [rejected] master -> master (non-fast-forward) I understand why I received the error. How can I merge my changes into the remote repo? Do I need to pull the remote repo first?

  Read the article

• Automatically pulling on remote server with Git push?

  - by Vernon

  Here's what I'm trying to do: I have a GitHub repository, a portion of which I'd like to make web viewable. Right now I've cloned the repository on my own server and it works well, but in order to keep it up to date, I have to manually login and pull the latest changes. I'm not sure if this is the best idea (or the best approach), but I'd like the remote server to automatically pull whenever someone pushes to repository. GitHub makes it easy enough to run a script when someone pushes, but I'm not sure how to pull once someone does that. I was using PHP for simplicity, but just doing something like git pull naturally doesn't work because of permissions. Is this a bad idea or is there another way of achieving what I want to do? This seems like a common set up, but I wasn't sure. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Setting up a Git remote with a truncated history

  - by drg

  I am in the midst of doing some non-standard, probably doomed, experiments on a git repository. The goal is to create a remote repository with a truncated history which can still share commits with an internal repository which has a full history. I've had some success using a graft to connect the public history with the private history - when I push from my internal repository, only the post-graft contents are included. So my main question is: what is the simplest way of taking a commit, eliminating its parent and writing a graft in place of the parent? A more general question: is what I'm trying to do going to cause me pain in the long run, do you know if there's a better way?

  Read the article

• How to move a branch backwards in git?

  - by karlthorwald

  The title is not very clear. What I actually need to do often is the following: Let's say I have a development going on with several commits c1,c2,... and 3 branches A,B,C c1--c2--c3--(B)--c4--(A,C) Branch A and C are at the same commit. Now I want branch A to go back where B is, so that it loks like this: c1--c2--c3--(A,B)--c4--(C) Important is that this has to happen locally and on github. Sorry for my bad git speak, I hope I can make clear what it is.

  Read the article

• Deleting branches in git causes gitk to go wild

  - by a2h

  I decided to delete a few branches from a (personal project) repository of mine that were merged into master after confirming on #git that leftover branches aren't really necessary. However, gitk's visualisation of my repository's history as a result has been completely screwed up. Basically something like this: With those branches from commits appearing out of nowhere eventually going back into some other commits up ahead. A merge did not occur at all of the points, and I only had around 5 extra branches. Is this normal? Is there any fix for this?

  Read the article

• Can I undo the last git push?

  - by Stray

  A team member accidentally pushed half a gig of unwanted zips to the remote repo last night when they were in a rush. Yes... oops. Nobody has pulled or committed since. Ideally I want to just 'undo' what happened. I have looked at filter-branch and was thinking of trying something like git filter-branch --tree-filter 'rm -f *.zip' HEAD but that would be local, and I can't figure out how to do it direct on the remote repo. Is there a simpler way to undo what happened? If she amends her last commit and pushes again will that undo the push - ie actually remove those files from the history? Obviously if she deletes them, commits and pushes again then that still leaves the content in the repo, which is no good.

  Read the article

• Is nothing truly ever deleted in git?

  - by allenskd

  I'm currently learning git, usually I'm a bit skeptic of VCS since I have a hard time getting used to them. I deleted a branch called "experimental" with some tmp files, I saw the files removed in my working directory so I scratched my head and wondered if this is normal, can I bring it back in case I need it again, etc. I found the SHA making the commit of the tmp files and recreated the branch with the provided sha and saw it again with all the files and their current content. Everything I do in the working directory can be reverted once I commit it? Might seem like a silly question to many people, but it kinda intrigues me so I want to know the limits

  Read the article

• Is there a database with git-like qualities?

  - by Mat

  I'm looking for a database where multiple users can contribute and commit new data; other users can then pull that data into their own database repository, all in a git-like manner. A transcriptional database, if you like; does such a thing exist? My current thinking is to dump the database to a single file as SQL, but that could well get unwieldy once it is of any size. Another option is to dump the database and use the filesystem, but again it gets unwieldy once of any size.

  Read the article

• git merge, git rebase none seems to work, should I delete my github fork and refork from the upstream master?

  - by Joan Yin

  I have to confess my github sins. 4 month ago, I forked a upstream repo, without knowing much of git and pull request, i did some work on master branch locally, later on I realized the mistake, created a new branch, and squashed the changes to one and successfully send a PR later from that branch. the PR is accepted, and I moved on. Now I need to submit another PR. But my master branch is so messed up, when I do merge, or rebase, there are so many mistakes. I probably committed a few more sins this morning. I have been battling this for the whole morning now. so it comes to the point that I want a clean start. Can I delete the github fork and refork from the upstream master? What are the correct steps?

  Read the article

• How to merge branches in Git by "hunk"

  - by user1316464

  Here's the scenario. I made a "dev" branch off the "master" branch and made a few new commits. Some of those changes are going to only be relevant to my local development machine. For example I changed a URL variable to point to a local apache server instead of the real URL that's posted online (I did this for speed during the testing phase). Now I'd like to incorporate my changes from the dev branch into the master branch but NOT those changes which only make sense in my local environment. I'd envisioned something like a merge --patch which would allow me to choose the changes I want to merge line by line. Alternatively maybe I could checkout the "master" branch, but keep the files in my working directory as they were in the "dev" branch, then do a git add --patch. Would that work?

  Read the article

• Problems getting git 'server' to work on Windows

  - by Benjol

  I've followed the Tim's article (mentioned in the answer to this question), but - like many others, it seems - I'm stuck when trying do the test clone at the end. I get the fatal: the remote end hung up unexpectedly error, even though my $HOME path seems to be right. Anyone got any pointers to where I might start for debugging this? My git and linux-fu are severely limited... I'm aware of this answer to the same question, but it doesn't apply in my case, I don't get any messages about paths.

  Read the article

• How to keep .cproject local to each user while working collaboratively through git

  - by Don't panic

  I have a C++ project that I am working on with several other people. Some of us have Macs with OSX and some of us have PCs with either Windows 7 or Windows 8.1. We are currently using eclipse to edit the project and git for version control. The problem is that whenever you change property settings on one team member's computer the .cproject file is updated. Because different configurations/ file extensions are used across OSX and Windows we want the .cproject file to remain local. We have tried untracking .cproject through a gitignore for the .cproject file, but that just removes the .cproject file from the repository all together. We have also tried setting up an assumed-unchanged for .cproject but if .cproject is changed all this leads to is the need to manually deal with conflicts and updates. Is there any way to keep the file in the repository, but only change it locally? Ie merging would not update the .cproject file.

  Read the article

• SVN tool to rebase a branch in git style

  - by timmow

  Are there any tools available that will let me rebase in git style an SVN branch onto a new parent? So, in the following situation, I create a feature branch, and there are commits to the trunk E---F---G Feature / A---B---C---D--H--I trunk I'm looking for a tool which copies the trunk, and applies the commits one by one, letting me resolve any conflicts if any exist - but each commit retains the same commit message, and is still a separate commit. E'---F'---G' Feature / A---B---C---D--H--I trunk So commit E' will be a commit with the same changes as E, except in the case of E causing a conflict, in which case E' will differ from E in that E' has the conflicts resolved, and the same commit message as E. I'm looking for this as it helps in keeping branches up to date with trunk - the svnmerge.py / mergeinfo way does not help, as you still need to resolve your changes when you merge back to trunk.

  Read the article

• git merge specifies wrong author

  - by dhblah

  I have a problem with latest version of git i compiled under cygwin. At first, it displays editor to enter merge message. Previously, it went sailent. And then commit author seems to be different from normal commit. When I do manual commit, author is User Name <[email protected]>, but when I do merge author name is Domain\username <[email protected]> Is there a way to make merge to specify the same auther as for manual commit? What's happening?

  Read the article

• Multiple Concurrent Changes Using SVN, GIT, and CVS

  - by KlaxSmashing

  At work, we are using SVN, CVS, and GIT because there any many projects that were started at various times. Anyway, a common sequence that occurs is as follows: Working on task A, making changes to project Has new task B, some bug or functionality needs to be done on project, independent of task A but may affect same set of files Check in task B Check in task A Unfortunately, what I do at this time is two maintain 2 working copies of each project. So I can always work on task B from a clean copy. As you can imagine, this is wasteful and also, does not scale well (task C, D, E, etc.) For each of these versioning systems, are there commands that can help me do the following: "Save" task A, reverting working copy to current repository Work on task B, check in changes "Restore" task A changes back to working copy

  Read the article

• Reorganising git commits into different branches

  - by user1425706

  I am trying to reorganise my git tree so that it is structured a bit better. Basically at the moment I have a single master branch with a couple of small feature branches that split from it. I want to go back and reorder it so that the only commits in the main branch are the ones corresponding to new version numbers and then have all the in between commits reside in a separate develop branch from which the feature branches split from too. Basically I'm looking for a tool that will let me completely manually reorganise the tree. I thought maybe that interactive rebasing was what I was looking for but trying to do so in sourcetree makes it seem like it is not the right tool. Can anyone give me some advice on how best to proceed. Below is a diagram of my current structure: featureA x-x-x / \ master A-x-x-x-x-B-x-x-x-C D Desired structure: feature x-x-x / | develop x-x-x-x-x-x-x - / | | | master A - B - C - D

  Read the article

• git : The remote end hung up unexpectedly - too many simultaneous users?

  - by Pritam Barhate

  I asked this first on StackOverflow and I was suggested that I should ask it here: We have a self hosted git server (Gitolite) on a VPS account (CPU:2.68GHz RAM:1824MB). This same VPS is also used to publish our underdevelopment web apps for client demos. (Very little traffic). so the main use of the server is as a Git Server Only. This git server is accessed by a team of 30-40 people for various projects. Our problem is that during the day when 6-7 people are trying to access the server (sometimes same repo) we get frequent error message: ssh: connect to host xxx.xxx.xx.xx port 22: Bad file number fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly After trying for 10-15 minutes it generally succeeds. During early mornings and late nights when there are only 1-2 people, git commands work with 100% success rate. Also I would like to note that if I access the other file hosted on the server through HTTP it works fine. I found a couple of questions on StackOverflow and on other sites regarding this. But most of the people point towards SSH key set up or conflicts between Msysgit and Cygns SSH. However I don't think this is the problem in our case as we get this behavior on Windows (using msysgit only) as well as Mac Machines. Also if it was SSH configuration issue then it shouldn't work at all. But in our case it works after 10-15 minutes. I think in our case it might be too many simultaneous connections to same server (or same repo) or something like that. Does there exists a setting or a conf file that needs to modified to solve this problem? Please help me solve this problem or point me in the right direction. Thanks in advance. Pritam.

  Read the article

• I'm a SubVersion geek, why I should consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DRCS?

  - by Pierre 303

  I tried to understand the benefits of DRCS. I must recognize I still doesn't get it. Here are my current beliefs. I'm ready to destroy them thanks to your expertise. I know I'm probably resisting to change. I just want to evaluate how much that change will cost me. Merging hell can be solved by just applying good practices such as continuous integration. There is no such good practice than having a private branch for a few days when you are in a self managing team with real collaboration. I use branching for that for very rare cases, and I keep a branch for every major version, in which I fix bugs merged from the trunk. I see the value of committing offline then pushing online. But continuous integration can help on this too. I work on very large projects, and I never noticed SubVersion to be slow even when the server is 5000km away on the internet and my small connection (less than 1024D/128U). Harddisk space is cheap, so having a copy of source code locally doesn't look like a problem to me. I already have a full copy of the last version on my disk. I don't understand the distributed thing there (maybe THIS IS the key to my understanding?) I not new in the industry, and judging by my difficulty to understand, I don't think DRCS are easier to understand than SubVersion like. If fact, I don't understand... Doctor, give me your diagnostic.

  Read the article

• I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS?

  - by user2567

  I try to understand the benefits of distributed version control system (DVCS). I found Subversion Re-education and this article by Martin Fowler very useful. Mercurial and others DVCS promote a new way of working on code with changesets and local commits. It prevents from merging hell and other collaboration issues We are not affected by this as I practice continuous integration and working alone in a private branch is not an option, unless we are experimenting. We use a branch for every major version, in which we fix bugs merged from the trunk. Mercurial allows you to have lieutenants I understand this can be useful for very large projects like Linux, but I don't see the value in small and highly collaborative teams (5 to 7 people). Mercurial is faster, takes less disk space and full local copy allows faster logs & diffs operations. I'm not concerned by this either, as I didn't notice speed or space problems with SVN even with very large projects I'm working on. I'm seeking for your personal experiences and/or opinions from former SVN geeks. Especially regarding the changesets concept and overall performance boost you measured. UPDATE (12th Jan): I'm now convinced that it worth a try. UPDATE (12th Jun): I kissed Mercurial and I liked it. The taste of his cherry local commits. I kissed Mercurial just to try it. I hope my SVN Server don't mind it. It felt so wrong. It felt so right. Don't mean I'm in love tonight. FINAL UPDATE (29th Jul): I had the privilege to review Eric Sink's next book called Version Control by Example. He finished to convince me. I'll go for Mercurial.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49  | Next Page >