Search Results

Search found 3671 results on 147 pages for 'git checkout'.

Page 43/147 | < Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >

• [NGINX] How do you hide .git project directories?

  - by Xeoncross

  Now that I have nginx setup I need to be able to hide my .git directories. What kind of rewrite would I need to stop prying eyes? And where in the server {} or http {} block would it go?

  Read the article

• Git as a backup and Version Control System.

  - by gitnoob

  Hi. I want to use Git to backup my home drive, but I also want to use it as a version control system for projects that will be stored in my home drive. How would I go about doing that? Do I .gitignore all the projects root folders and make new repositories for them?

  Read the article

• Git: Add part of (changed) file to index *by line numbers*

  - by RobM

  Is there a git command to add differences within a range of line-numbers to the index? I want to be able to select lines in my editor and run a macro to add any changes in the selection to the index.

  Read the article

• Git repository issues

  - by sreeni

  Hi, I am working on origin:abc remote repository . I want to update the origin:def repository in the remote repository in git. Can some please give me command for this?

  Read the article

• Git repository is out of sync after rebase

  - by Keyo

  I have squashed 2 commits (A and B) into one new commit (C). The previous two commits (A and B) where removed. I pushed these commits from my development repo to a central(bare) repository. The git-log on both repos confirms that commits A and B have been removed. The problem is when I do a pull on a third repository which already had (A and B) it now has all three commits (A, B and C). I would have thought the pull would synchronise these changes. Do I need to checkout A~1 and then merge in the new changes? This seems like a hassle, especially in a production environment.

  Read the article

• How do I change a Git remote HEAD to point to something besides "master"

  - by jhs

  Short version: How do I set a Git remote's HEAD ref to point to something besides "master"? My project has a policy not to use a "master" branch (all branches are to have meaningful names). Furthermore, the canonical master repository is only accessible via ssh://, with no shell access (like GitHub or Unfuddle). My problem is that the remote repository still has a HEAD reference to refs/heads/master, but I need it to point to a different branch. This is causing two problems: When cloning the repo, there this, warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout. That's confusing and inconvenient. The web-based code browser depends on HEAD as a basis for browsing the tree. I need HEAD to point to a valid branch, then.

  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

• Is there a way to easily convert a series of tarballs of a source tree into a git repository?

  - by Hotei

  I'm new to git and I have a moderately large number of weekly tarballs from a long running project. Each tarball has on average a few hundred files in it. I'm looking for a git strategy that will allow me to add the expanded contents of each tarball to a new git repository, starting from version 1.001 and going through version 1.650. As of this stage of the project 99.5% of tarball(n) is just a copy of version(n-1) - in other words, a perfect candidate for git. The desired end result is to have only the master branch remaining at the end of the process. I think I know git well enough to do this "by hand". As I understand it there is no possibility of a merge conflict since there will be no opportunity to change the master before the next version is added and committed. A shell script is my first guess, but I'm not sure how well bash will like it when git checkout branch_n gets processed while bash is executing in branch_n-1. For the purposes of this project the host environment is Ubuntu 10.4, resources available are 8 Gig RAM, 500 Gig Disk space free and 4 CPU processor at 3.ghz . I don't need someone else to solve the problem but I could use a nudge in the right direction as to how a git expert would approach it. Any advice from someone who's "been there done that" would be appreciated. Hotei PS: I have looked at site's suggested "related questions" and found nothing relevant.

  Read the article

• Best practices for cross platform git config?

  - by Bas Bossink

  Context A number of my application user configuration files are kept in a git repository for easy sharing across multiple machines and multiple platforms. Amongst these configuration files is .gitconfig which contains the following settings for handling the carriage return linefeed characters [core] autocrlf = true safecrlf = false Problem These settings also gets applied on a GNU/Linux platform which causes obscure errors. Question What are some best practices for handling these platform specific differences in configuration files? Proposed solution I realize this problem could be solved by having a branch for each platform and keeping the common stuff in master and merging with the platform branch when master moves forward. I'm wondering if there are any easier solutions to this problem?

  Read the article

• Git fails when pushing commit to github

  - by Steve Melvin

  I cloned a git repo that I have hosted on github to my laptop. I was able to successfully push a couple of commits to github without problem. However, now I get the following error: Compressing objects: 100% (792/792), done. error: RPC failed; result=22, HTTP code = 411 Writing objects: 100% (1148/1148), 18.79 MiB | 13.81 MiB/s, done. Total 1148 (delta 356), reused 944 (delta 214) From here it just hangs and I finally have to ^C back to the terminal.

  Read the article

• How can I mark a group of changes/changesets in SVN, Hg, or Git

  - by sylvanaar

  I would like to mark an arbitrary group of commits/changesets with a label. Commit 1 *Mark 1 Commit 2 *Mark 2 Commit 3 Commit 4 *Mark 1 Commit 5 *Mark 2 The goal is to easily locate all the changes for a specific mark, and to have that grouping persisted in the VCS directly, as opposed to some outside system like a bug tracking system. The location and ordering of the marks needs to be arbitrary, and should be able to work with both committed/uncommitted and pushed/unpushed changes. In SVN the best way I know is to just edit the commit notes and add some sort of special text that you can search for e.g. "**Mark 1". Or just to make a fake edit and commit it and use its commit note to list all the included revisions. Is there a better solution for SVN? Are there equivalent or better solutions for Hg or Git?

  Read the article

• Trying to find a good strategy using Git for personal development on local/personal machine

  - by AJ

  A noob here. I have a personal Macbook and I want to use Git to track the changes etc. I want to just init a repo on my macbook and work there. Is this a good idea? What if: I have a main repo somewhere in my Macbook HD, like, /Users/user/projects/project1 and clone it to another area on my macbook where I actually perform development? But there is a lot of redundancy in this. I am a little confused and want to know what are the usual steps folks take in a similar personal development environment. Thanks a lot.

  Read the article

• Preview a git push

  - by Saverio Miroddi

  How can I see which commits are actually going to be pushed to a remote repository? As far as I know, whenever I pull master from the remote repository, commits are likely to be generated, even if they're empty. This causes the local master to be 'forward' even if there is really nothing to push. Now, if I try (from master): git cherry origin master I have an idea of what's going to be pushed, though this also display some commits that I've already pushed. Is there a way to display only the new content that's going to be pushed?

  Read the article

• How can I view multiple git diffs side by side in vim

  - by Pete Hodgson

  I'd like to be able to run a command that opens up a git diff in vim, with a tab for each file in the diff set. So if for example I've changed files foo.txt and bar.txt in my working tree and I ran the command I would see vim open with two tabs. The first tab would contain a side-by-side diff between foo.txt in my working tree and foo.txt in the repository, and the second tab would contain a side-by-side diff for bar.txt. Anyone got any ideas?

  Read the article

• 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

< Previous Page | 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50  | Next Page >