Search Results

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

Page 49/118 | < Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >

• Git: HEAD has disappeared, want to merge it into master.

  - by samgoody

  The top image is the output of: git reflog. The bottom is what GITK in GIT GUI (msysgit) shows me when I look at all branch history. The last few commits do not show on GIT GUI. Why do they not show on GITK (at least as a branch or something)? How do I merge them into master? I gather this happened when I checked out tag 0.42. Why is that not the same as master? (I had tagged the master in its latest state) When I click push, why does the remote repo claim to be up to date.. shouldn't it try to update these commits into whatever branch they are in? The first of the questions is important - I would like to begin to understand what GIT is thinking. It's more oracle than logic at this point. If it makes a difference to see the earlier history, the project is a [pretty powerful] JS color picker that can be viewed here in its entirety.

  Read the article

• Quantifying the amount of change in a git diff?

  - by Alex Feinman

  I use git for a slightly unusual purpose--it stores my text as I write fiction. (I know, I know...geeky.) I am trying to keep track of productivity, and want to measure the degree of difference between subsequent commits. The writer's proxy for "work" is "words written", at least during the creation stage. I can't use straight word count as it ignores editing and compression, both vital parts of writing. I think I want to track: (words added)+(words removed) which will double-count (words changed), but I'm okay with that. It'd be great to type some magic incantation and have git report this distance metric for any two revisions. However, git diffs are patches, which show entire lines even if you've only twiddled one character on the line; I don't want that, especially since my 'lines' are paragraphs. Ideally I'd even be able to specify what I mean by "word" (though \W+ would probably be acceptable). Is there a flag to git-diff to give diffs on a word-by-word basis? Alternately, is there a solution using standard command-line tools to compute the metric above?

  Read the article

• GIT: head has dissapeared, want to merge it into master.

  - by samgoody

  The top image is the output of: git reflog. The bottom is what GITK in GIT GUI (msysgit) shows me when I look at all branch history. The last few commits do not show on GIT GUI. Why do they not show on GITK (at least as a branch or something)? How do I merge them into master? I gather this happened when I checked out tag 0.42. Why is that not the same as master? (I had tagged the master in its latest state) When I click push, why does the remote repo claim to be up to date.. shouldn't it try to update these commits into whatever branch they are in? The first of the questions is important - I would like to begin to understand what GIT is thinking. It's more oracle than logic at this point. If it makes a difference to see the earlier history, the project is a [pretty powerful] JS color picker that can be viewed here in its entirety.

  Read the article

• git contributors not showing up properly in github/etc.

  - by RobH

  I'm working in a team on a big project, but when I'm doing the merges I'd like the developers name to appear in github as the author -- currently, I'm the only one showing up since I'm merging. Context: There are 4 developers, and we're using the "integration manager" workflow using GitHub. Our "blessed" repo is under the organization, and each developer manages their pub/private repo. I've been tasked with being the integration manager, so I'm doing the merges, etc. Where I could be messing up is that I'm basically working out of my rob/project.git instead of the org/project.git -- so when I do local merges I operate on my repo then I push to both my public and the org public. (Make sense?) When I push to the blessed repo nobody else shows up as an author, since all commits are coming from me -- how can I get around this? -- Also, we all forked org/project.git, yet in the network graph nobody is showing up -- did we mess this up too? I'm used to working with git solo and don't have too much experience with handling a team of devs. Merging seems like the right thing to do, but I'm being thrown off since GitHub is kind of ignoring the other contributors. If this makes no sense at all, how do you use GitHub to manage a single project across 4 developers? (preferably the integration mgr workflow, branching i think would solve the problem) Thanks for any help

  Read the article

• How can I diff against a revision of a single file using the default Git GUI tools?

  - by Rich

  I want to view the history of a single file, and then compare a single revision from that history against the current version. On the command line, this is easy: Run: git log -- <filename> Locate the version you want to compare, Run: git diff <commitid> -- <filename> But how can this be done in the default Git gui tools, git gui and gitk? I know of two methods using gitk, but they're both horribly clunky: Either: Select the New View option from the View menu, Type in the full path to your file into the box labelled Enter files and directories to include, one per line, Locate the version you want to compare by looking at the highlighted items in the top pane, and click on it to select it, Right-click on the current version and select Diff selected - this, Or: Select Tree in the bottom right-hand pane, Locate the file you want to look at, right-click on it, and select Highlight this only, Locate the version you want to compare by looking at the highlighted items in the top pane, and click on it to select it, Right-click on the current version and select Diff selected - this, Click on the file in the bottom right-hand pane to jump to it in the diff output, or scroll manually. Is a better method than this?

  Read the article

• Is there any equivalence of `--depth immediates` in `git`?

  - by ???

  Currently, I'm try to setup git front-end to the Subversion repository. My Subversion repository is a single large repository which consists of several co-related projects: svn-root |-- project1 | |-- branches | |-- tags | `-- trunk |-- project2 | |-- branches | |-- tags | `-- trunk `-- project3 |-- branches |-- tags `-- trunk Because it's sometimes needs to move files between different projects, so I don't want to break the repository to separate ones. I'm going to use git-svn to setup a git front-end, but I don't see how to exactly mapping the svn to git structure. The two systems treat branches and tags very different and I doubt it is possible. To simplify the problem, I would just git svn clone the whole root directory and let branches/tags/trunk directories just sit there. But this will definitely result in too many files in branches and tags directories. In Subversion, it's easy to just set the depth of checkout to immediates, which will only checkout the branch/tag titles, without the directory contents. but I don't know if this can be done in git. The git-svn messed me up. I hope there's more elegant solution.

  Read the article

• How do I git reset --hard HEAD on Mercurial?

  - by obvio171

  I'm a Git user trying to use Mercurial. Here's what happened: I did a hg backout on a changeset I wanted to revert. That created a new head, so hg instructed me to merge (back to "default", I assume). After the merge, it told me I still had to commit. Then I noticed something I did wrong when resolving a conflict in the merge, and decided I wanted to have everything as before the hg backout, that is, I want this uncommited merge to go away. On Git this uncommited stuff would be in the index and I'd just do a git reset --hard HEAD to wipe it out but, from what I've read, the index doesn't exist on Mercurial. So how do I back out from this?

  Read the article

• Can GIT, Mercurial, SVN, or other version control tools work well when project tree has binary files

  - by Jian Lin

  Sometimes our project tree can have binary files, such as jpg, png, doc, xls, or pdf. Can GIT, Mercurial, SVN, or other tools do a good job when only part of a binary file is changed? For example, if the spec is written in .doc and it is part of the repository, then if it is 4MB, and edited 100 times but just for 1 or 2 lines, and checked in 100 times during the year, then it is 400MB. If it is 100 different .doc and .xls files, then it is 40GB... not a size that is easy to manage. I have tried GIT and Mercurial and see that they both seem to add a big size of data even when 1 line is changed in a .doc or .pdf. Is there other way inside of GIT or Mercurial or SVN that can do the job?

  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

• Is there a single Git command to get the current tag, branch and commit?

  - by Koraktor

  I'm currently using a collection of three commands to get the current tag, branch and the date and SHA1 of the most recent commit. git describe --always --tag git log -1 --format="%H%n%aD" git rev-parse --abbrev-ref HEAD Which will output something like: 1.2.3-gdeadbeef deadbeef3b8d90071c24f51ac8f26ce97a72727b Wed, 19 May 2010 09:12:34 +0200 master To be honest, I'm totally fine with this. But I'm using these commands from Maven and anyone who'd used Maven before, knows how much things like external commands bloat the POM. I just want to slim down my pom.xml and maybe reduce execution time a bit.

  Read the article

• How do you tell git to permanently ignore changes in a file?

  - by Malvineous

  Hi all, I'm working with a git repository that's storing data for a website. It contains a .htaccess file, with some values that are suitable for the production server. In order for me to work on the site, I have to change some values in the file, but I never want to commit these changes or I will break the server. Since .gitignore doesn't work for tracked files, I was using "git update-index --assume-unchanged .htaccess" to ignore my changes in the file, however this only works until you switch branches. Once you change back to your original branch, your changes are lost. Is there some way of telling git to ignore changes in a file and leave it alone when changing branches? (Just as if the file was untracked.)

  Read the article

• does a git repository have its own local value for core.autocrlf that overrides the global one?

  - by Warren P

  As per this question, I understand that core.autocrlf=true in git will cause CRLF to LF translations. However when I type : git config core.autocrlf I see: false However, when I stage modified files that are already in the repo, I still get these warnings: Warning: CRLF will be replaced by LF in File1.X. The file will have its original line endings in your working directory. My guess is that the repo copy of the file is already set to "autocrlf=true". Questions: A. How do I query whether a file or git repo is already forcing AutoCrlf? B. How do I turn it autocrlf off?

  Read the article

• What's the difference between SVN and Git for merging?

  - by Alexander

  As the title suggests, I am curious as to why so many people tout Git as a superior alternative to branching/merging over SVN. I am primarily curious because SVN merging sucks and I would like an alternative solution. How does Git handle merging better? How does it work? For example, in SVN, if I have the following line: Hello World! Then user1 changes it to: Hello World!1 then user2 changes it to: Hello World!12 Then user2 commits, then user1 commits, SVN would give you a conflict. Can Git resolve something simple as this?

  Read the article

• Why does my git push hang after successfully pushing?

  - by John

  On a newly set up ssh git repo, whenever I push, I get normal output like this: ? git push Counting objects: 15, done. Delta compression using up to 4 threads. Compressing objects: 100% (9/9), done. Writing objects: 100% (9/9), 989 bytes, done. Total 9 (delta 7), reused 0 (delta 0) It happens very quickly, and the changes are immediately available on the server repo. But the output hangs there for about a minute, and then finishes with: To [email protected]:baz.git c8c391c..1de5e80 branch_name -> branch_name If I control-c before it finishes, everything seems to continue to be normal and healthy, locally and remotely. What is it doing while hanging? Is something configured incorrectly on the server side?

  Read the article

• git - how do we verify commit messages for a push?

  - by shovas

  Coming from CVS, we have a policy that commit messages should be tagged with a bug number (simple suffix "... [9999]"). A CVS script checks this during commits and rejects the commit if the message does not conform. The git hook commit-msg does this on the developer side but we find it helpful to have automated systems check and remind us of this. During a git push, commit-msg isn't run. Is there another hook during push that could check commit messages? How do we verify commit messages during a git push?

  Read the article

• Rolling back a git tree, fully or partially (single file) how to?

  - by Tzury Bar Yochay

  On a given server, I have a set of daemons each of which has its own configuration file. I would like to use git to manage the configuration files editing during time and always have the option to rollback to the "factory defaults" in regards to all files or a specific one. For instance, given the following structure: $ ls -l total 0 -rw-r--r-- 1 tzury tzury 0 2011-01-05 06:36 bar.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 tzury tzury 0 2011-01-05 06:36 baz.conf -rw-r--r-- 1 tzury tzury 0 2011-01-05 06:36 foo.conf Assuming all those .conf files are stored in a git repository, I want to be able to restore all files into their original shape (that would be the first git commit). Yet, I would also like to be able to rollback a specific file to the factory defaults, while others remain up to date.

  Read the article

• How do I customize the format of git rebase --interactive commit messages?

  - by adamjford

  Hi everyone, I use git for my local work (and love it ever so much), and I follow a workflow similar to the one described in this article. So basically, when starting on a new feature, I create a branch for it, go through the usual hack then commit cycle, and when I think I'm done with it, I squash it into a single commit using git rebase --interactive master, and these squashed commit messages always end up looking like the example in the article, reproduced here: [#3275] User Can Add A Comment To a Post * Adding Comment model, migrations, spec * Adding Comment controller, helper, spec * Adding Comment relationship with Post * Comment belongs to a User * Comment form on Post show page Of course, that's after a bunch of removing # This is the xth commit message lines and copy/pasting * in front of each commit message. Now, what I was wondering, is there any way to customize how git rebase -i outputs the merged commit messages so I don't have to do all that hacking? (I use msysgit, if that matters.) Thanks!

  Read the article

• How can I pull another repository and update to its head in GIT?

  - by mark

  Here is the description of the problem in terms of Mercurial: Given: Two repos A and B, where B is a fork of A The current directory is a working directory for the tip of A. Needed: Pull in B and update to its most recent head REV. This is what I want to do in term of Mercurial: A> hg pull B A> hg heads # Notice the most recent head of B A> hg update **REV** How can I do it in GIT? More concretely: A is the master branch of https://github.com/yui/yui3-gallery.git B is the master branch of https://github.com/jafl/yui3-gallery.git I need to update to the most recent revision of B, when I have a local clone of A I know it should be trivial, still I cannot figure it out. Anyone?

  Read the article

• How to prevent ssh git push to set file ownership?

  - by e-satis

  I have a remote bare git repository on an Ubuntu server, where the file are owned by the user my_project and the group my_project, with permissions set accordingly. All commiters are themself in the group my_project. When somebody commit then push from my Ubuntu laptop with the user my_user to the server via SSH, some files in the remote repository are created (updated?) so they now belong to the user and group my_user. Of course, when somebody else want to commit, he is now unable to do so because he doesn't have write permissions. I could set permission to 777 but it's not the best option. Is there any way I can solve this problem while keeping restricted write permissions.

  Read the article

• Meet Git, the Version Control System for Developers Who Like Ease

  Meet Git, an open-source version control system that reduces rather than adds to the overhead of managing a software project.

  Read the article

• What is it that automatically checks config changes (such as those in /etc) into git?

  - by Brandon

  I remember reading on the ubuntu forums some time ago about a program to automatically check configuration changes into version control for you. It was (of course) not Ubuntu-specific. I'm pretty sure it used git, though it may have been svn, or perhaps even able to work with multiple different VCSs. My Googling has turned up nothing, and I'd rather not roll my own script if someone has already done this well. Of course I could just manually check things in, but there are reasons I'd like it done automatically. (I'm actually planning to use this for my LastSession.plist file for Safari, so when the #@$%^*&! thing crashes, and I don't restore everything, and then Leopard crashes, the fact that it has such lousy session management won't mean I lose the dozens of windows with dozens of tabs I had open.)

  Read the article

• Contributing to OSS, a Git Bootcamp

  So you want to contribute to an OSS project, but its hosted on github and you don't know where to start. This guide will cover the basics you'll need to get contributing - something made relatively easy by Git itself. First you'll need to install a Git client. We'll be using msysgit, so grab the latest full installer from: http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/downloads/list Run the installer. I've disabled Shell integration (but you don't have to). What you want to do is make...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

• Be careful when Git suppresses bin Folders

  - by Marko Apfel

  Initial situation Often for Visual Studio projects the typical content of a .gitignore file contains this line bin or [B|b]in It is used to avoid that Git tries to track compile outputs as repository relevant data. Problem But keep in mind: this will also suppress bin folders of additional stuff like frameworks and toolsets. For instance Microsoft.SDKs contains a folder named Bin with a lot of programs Simian contains a folder named bin with the program themselves If you store such artifacts also in the repository - according to the principle of a “self containing project” – you could lost the content in the bin folder! Solution Till yet I don’t have a good idea. So I verify for each new added toolset or framework whether it has or has not such a bin folder. If it has, then I must add this bin folder manually to the repository so that Git track it.

  Read the article

• Building SANE from git-source produce backend missmatch on 12.04 even if built locally

  - by deinonychusaur

  It seems to me that with Ubuntu Precise Pangolin it is all but easy to do a proper install of SANE from source (git-repo). I've found other scanning issues trying to find an answer to this, where the output people posted seems to indicate they suffer the same issue (unknowingly). If I run on a fresh install of Ubuntu 12.04 with compiled SANE source from the git I get: $ scanimage -V scanimage (sane-backends) 1.0.24git; backend version 1.0.22 (I basically followed the instructions on http://ubuntuportal.com/2012/02/how-to-get-an-canon-canoscan-lide-100-scanner-to-work-in-ubuntu-11-10linux-mint-12.html since I didn't find any other information making sure that sane was not installed prior to installation.) My primary interest is the epson2-backend. In 1.0.22 it offers the wrong TPU settings for Epson V700 (TPU2-mode wasn't supported in 1.0.22, and the scanner is useless to me if I don't have the TPU2-support). Since if I ask it to enter transparency mode, it shows 1.0.22 behaviour, it implies that the epson2-backend comes from 1.0.22 and not 1.0.24 even though I just built it. If I install SANE with prefix to a local folder and run that version of scanimage it still produces the mismatch. However, on another computer where I installed a custom 1.0.22 build of SANE prior to upgrading to Ubuntu 12.04, I can build and install the same SANE-git locally and have it correctly match backends: $ ./SANE/bin/scanimage -V scanimage (sane-backends) 1.0.24git; backend version 1.0.24 $ scanimage -V scanimage (sane-backends) 1.0.22; backend version 1.0.22 On this computer the 1.0.24 works correctly in finding TPU2 on Epson V700. So what am I missing/doing wrong? (And I want to replace 1.0.22 with 1.0.24 for the whole system, the local build was just debugging.) Any help would be much appreciated. Edit 1: Just tried compiling SANE using this instruction on Ubuntu 10.04 and it worked like a charm. However, when I upgraded to 12.04 (really would like to run 12.04), SANE was downgraded to 1.0.22. When trying the same set of instructions on 12.04 I was still out of luck -- the backend missmatch was there again (and I do have libusb-dev installed) Edit 2: I updated to Ubuntu 12.10 which now has the 1.0.23 SANE drivers. I haven't dared trying to compile from source on 12.10 since 1.0.23 is good enough for me. This is just a work-around and I would still like to know what's up with Ubuntu 12.04.

  Read the article

• I have a server running Windows 2008 R2 Core and it needs to hosts either SVN or GIT

  - by Jason Adams

  The server allocated for our cross platform projects (both Mac & PC) source repository is running Win2008R2 Core. We're really happy with its stability and we aren't interested in moving over to non-core. We need to get either SVN or GIT installed on the aforementioned box in the shortest amount of steps. We know the advantages/disadvantages of both systems. That being said, we don't care which one we use, we're just are looking for the path of least resistance on setting up a repository on a machine running R2 core.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56  | Next Page >