Search Results

Search found 31206 results on 1249 pages for 'version detection'.

Page 51/1249 | < Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >

• Git workflow for small teams

  - by janos

  I'm working on a git workflow to implement in a small team. The core ideas in the workflow: there is a shared project master that all team members can write to all development is done exclusively on feature branches feature branches are code reviewed by a team member other than the branch author the feature branch is eventually merged into the shared master and the cycle starts again The article explains the steps in this cycle in detail: https://github.com/janosgyerik/git-workflows-book/blob/small-team-workflow/chapter05.md Does this make sense or am I missing something?

  Read the article

• Why are tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn useful? [closed]

  - by Wes

  I have read these related questions: I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS? git for personal (one-man) projects. Overkill? ...and I understand why git is useful. What I don't understand is why tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn are useful. When, for example, a team is working with svn, or any other centralised SCM, why would a member of the team opt to use git-svn? Are there any practical advantages for a developer that has to synchronize with a centralized repository?

  Read the article

• Is reference to bug/issue in commit message considered good practice?

  - by Christian P

  I'm working on a project where we have the source control set up to automatically write notes in the bug tracker. We simply write the bug issue ID in the commit message and the commit message is added as a note to the bug tracker. I can see only a few downsides for this practice. If sometime in the future the source code gets separated from the bug tracking software (or the reported bugs/issues are somehow lost). Or when someone is looking in the history of commits but doesn't have access to our bug tracker. My question is if having a bug/issue reference in the commit message is considered good practice? Are there some other downsides?

  Read the article

• How and where do you store your private work/source codes?

  - by Amir Rezaei

  I have worked as developer for over 10 years now. Over the time I have had my own small projects where I have developed tool/application and games. I have not found any robust solution to store my work. It’s always fun to get back to your code and see how you did before and how you would do it now. It’s just a work that is unfortunate to get lost. There are SVN solution such as Google’s Project Hosting. However I’m not interested in sharing my code or making it open source. Currently I’m hosting my own SVN server. So here comes my question. How and where do you store your private work/source codes? Requirements: Source code versioning Backup Prefers free

  Read the article

• Why fork a library for your own application?

  - by Mr. Shickadance

  Why should a programmer ever fork a library for inclusion in a widely used application? I ask this question because I was reading an article about why Chromium isn't packaged for many Linux distros like Fedora. Apparently its largely due to the fact that Google has forked a number of libraries, modified them, and included them in Chromium. This has driven up the complexity of packaging releases. There are a number of reasons why this can be a bad thing, but how strong a case can you actually make for doing so in a large widely used application such as Chromium? The original article: http://ostatic.com/blog/making-projects-easier-to-package-why-chromium-isnt-in-fedora Isn't it usually worth the effort to make slight modifications to your own program in order to use a popular and well developed library?

  Read the article

• Resources for using TFS for Agile Project Development?

  - by Amy P

  Our company just installed TFS for us to start using for project development processes and source control. They want us to start using it to manage our projects as well. We have a small team, no current bug or task tracking software, and 2 developers of the 3 have experience with any actual methodologies. What books, websites, and/or other information can you recommend for us to use to get started?

  Read the article

• Convincing my coworkers to use Hudson CI

  - by in0de

  Im really aware of some benefits of using Hudson as CI server. But, im facing the problem to convince my coworkers to install and use it. To put some context, we are developing two different products (one is an enterprise search engine based on Apache Solr) and several enterprise search projects. We are facing a lot of versioning issues and i think Hudson will solve this problems. They argued about its productivity and learning curve What Hudson's benefits would you spotlight?

  Read the article

• From TFS to Git

  - by Saeed Neamati

  I'm a .NET developer and I've used TFS (team foundation server) as my source control software many times. Good features of TFS are: Good integration with Visual Studio (so I do almost everything visually; no console commands) Easy check-out, check-in process Easy merging and conflict resolution Easy automated builds Branching Now, I want to use Git as the backbone, repository, and source control of my open source projects. My projects are in C#, JavaScript, or PHP language with MySQL, or SQL Server databases as the storage mechanism. I just used github.com's help for this purpose and I created a profile there, and downloaded a GUI for Git. Up to this part was so easy. But I'm almost stuck at going along any further. I just want to do some simple (really simple) operations, including: Creating a project on Git and mapping it to a folder on my laptop Checking out/checking in files and folders Resolving conflicts That's all I need to do now. But it seems that the GUI is not that user friendly. I expect the GUI to have a Connect To... or something like that, and then I expect a list of projects to be shown, and when I choose one, I expect to see the list of files and folders of that project, just like exploring your TFS project in Visual Studio. Then I want to be able to right click a file and select check-in... or check-out and stuff like that. Do I expect much? What should I do to easily use Git just like TFS? What am I missing here?

  Read the article

• Should Git be used for documentation and project management? Should the code be in a separate repository?

  - by EmpireJones

  I'm starting up a Git repository for a group project. Does it make sense to store documents in the same Git repository as code - it seems like this conflicts with the nature of the git revision flow. Here is a summary of my question(s): Is the Git revisioning style going to be confusing if both code and documents are checked into the same repository? Experiences with this? Is Git a good fit for documentation revision control? I am NOT asking if a Revision Control System in general should or shouldn't be used for documentation - it should. Thanks for the feedback so far!

  Read the article

• Should I expect my team to have more than a basic proficiency with our source control system?

  - by Joshua Smith

  My company switched from Subversion to Git about three months ago. We had weeks of advance notice prior to the switch. Since I'd never used Git before (or any other DVCS), I read Pro Git and spent a little time spinning up my own repositories and playing around, so that when we switched I'd be able to keep working with minimal pain. Now I'm the 'Git guy' by default. With a couple of exceptions, most of my team still has no idea how Git works. For example, they still think of branches as complete copies of the source code, and even go so far as to clone the repo into multiple folders (one per branch). They generally look at Git as a scary black box. Given the fundamental nature of source control in our daily work (not to mention the ridiculous amount of power Git affords us), I'm of the opinion that any dev who doesn't achieve a certain level of proficiency with it is a liability. Should I expect my team to have at least some understanding of how Git works internally, and how to use it beyond the most basic pull/merge/push operations? Or am I just making something out of nothing?

  Read the article

• Are Remote commit hooks in subversion possible?

  - by John Hamelink

  Hi there, my current setup is as follows: We have a Linux samba share that contains all the repository folders (with the hooks folder inside, amongst the others) All the developers have the share mapped as a network drive, and import to a local directory (normally C:\Server\RepositoryName) where they work on their files. All the machines accessing the drive (unfortunately) run windows. What I'm aiming to do is to have a hook on the Linux server that detects when a commit has been made, by which project, the revision number, the name of the developer who committed, etc. I looked into the hooks files, but they seem to be ran by the client. Is there a way to monitor svn changes and collect the relevant information from the Linux server?

  Read the article

• Keeping up with upstream changes while adding small fixes or even major changes

  - by neo

  Often I need to apply some small fixes (to make them run on my environment) or even change some parts of the software (to tailor it to my needs) to software from outside. However this obviously creates problem with updating said software, even when it changes nothing related to my fix. It would be easier when the software provided integration for some kind of plugins but more often than not it doesn't. What would be an ideal workflow regarding that? Most of the projects are git repos I pulled from outside. How should I apply my changes so that I can update painlessly? You can assume that external changes are much more often and larger than my own ones, so reviewing each one of them won't be a solution.

  Read the article

• Confusion about git; how to undo?

  - by dan

  I wanted to install some source code that was on git. Don't really know what that means, I've never used git before, but I figured it was time to learn so, I first installed git. Next I tried to clone the git directory of the software I want to install. I got a message saying "the authenticity of can't be established". I went ahead and ended up with another message saying warning such and such will be added to known hosts. I went ahead and it said something about hanging up on the connection. After searching the internet for a while I realized I didn't need git to install the software but now I have it installed and have added some host to some file or another. I'm concerned I've created some security issues I need to fix. Can anyone help me undo what I've done, or better understand what I've done. Did adding a git project open up my system? Beyond that can anyone tell me how git works. Everything I've found assumes I know stuff that I don't yet. Thanks

  Read the article

• How to convert a Bazaar repository to GIT repository?

  - by Naruto Uzumaki

  We have a large bazaar repository and we want to convert it to a git repository. The bazaar repository contains the folders of each of the interns. Any documentation/code prepared by interns is committed in their directory so there are a huge number of commits. What steps should be performed to securely convert the bazaar repository to a git repository so that we do not lose any commit information. We firstly need to create a backup of the existing bazaar repository and then convert it. Edit: I followed this link: http://librelist.com/browser//cville/2010/2/9/migrate-repository-bzr-to-git/ It's working fine on my system with Ubuntu. But when I try to run it on the actual server it gives me EOF error and crashes Starting export of 1036 revisions ... fatal: EOF in data (1825 bytes remaining) fast-import: dumping crash report to .git/fast_import_crash_11804 Edit 2: I also tried it on a new CentOS system and received the following error fatal: ambiguous argument 'HEAD': unknown revision or path not in the working tree. Use '--' to separate paths from revisions

  Read the article

• After upgrading to 12.10 usb drives fail to mount

  - by John Shore

  Following upgrade to 12.10, my usb drives - both pen drives and a usb hard drive - fail to mount with the error message: Unable to mount *name of drive* volume Adding read ACL for uid 1000 to '/media/*my home file name*' failed: Operation not supported This is on a desktop Dell Inspiron 530. I also have a Dell Inspiron Mini 10 netbook which I also upgraded to 12.10 (slightly smaller installation on a flash hard drive). all devices mount automatically without problems on this computer.

  Read the article

• How do you structure your shared code so that it is "re-findable" for new developers?

  - by awmckinley

  I started working at my current job about 8 months ago, and its been one of the best experiences I've had as a young programmer. It's a small company, and both my co-developers are brilliant guys. One of the practices that they both have been encouraging is lots of code-reuse. Our code base is mainly C#, and we're using a centralized revision control system. The way the repository is currently structured, there is a single folder in which all shared class libraries are placed (along with unit tests for each library), and our revision control system allows for sharing or linking those libraries out to other projects. What I'm trying to understand at this point is how the current structure of the folder can be made more conducive for finding those libraries again. I've talked to the other developers about this, and they agree that it's gotten a little messy. I find that I am sometimes "reinventing the wheel" because I didn't realize that there was an existing piece of code that solved a particular problem. The issue is complicated further by the fact that we're sharing some code between ASP.NET MVC2, WinForms, and Windows CE projects, and sharing code between applications built against multiple versions of .NET. How do other people approach this? Is the answer in naming the libraries in a certain way or is it preferable to invest in some code-search software? Is the answer in doc comments? Should we be sharing libraries at all or should we simply branch the class libraries for re-use? Thanks for any and all help!

  Read the article

• Library and several small programs that use it: how should I structure my git repository?

  - by Dan

  I have some code that uses a library that I and others frequently modify (usually only by adding functions and methods). We each keep a local fork of the library for our own use. I also have a lot of small "driver" programs (~100 lines) that use the library and are used exclusively by me. Currently, I have both the driver programs and the library in the same repository, because I frequently make changes to both that are logically connected (adding a function to the library and then calling it). I'd like to merge my fork of the library with my co-workers' forks, but I don't want the driver programs to be part of the merged library. What's the best way to organize the git repositories for a large, shared library that needs to be merged frequently and a number of small programs that have changes that are connected to changes in the library?

  Read the article

• Using Mercurial repository inside a Git one: Feasible? Sane?

  - by Portablejim

  I am thinking on creating a Mercurial repository under a Git repository. e.g. ..../git-repository/directory/hg-repo/ The 2 repositories Is it possible to manage (keeping your sanity)? How similiar is it to this? I am a computer science student at University. I manage my work in Git, mainly as a distribution mechanism (after realizing that rsync fails when you have changes in more than one place) between my desktop and usb drive. I try use of Git as a VCS as I do work. I have finished a semester where I did a small group project to prepare for a larger group project next year. We had to use Subversion, and experienced the joys of a centralised VCS (including downtime). I tried to keep the subversion repository separate to my Git repository for the subject**, however it was annoying that it was seperate (not in the place where I store assignments). I therefore moved to using an Subversion repository inside my Git repository. As I think ahead (maybe I am thinking too far ahead) I realise that I will have to try and convince people to use a DVCS and Mercurial will probably be the one that is preferred (Windows and Mac GUI support, closer to Subversion). Having done some research into the whole Git vs Mercurial debate (however not used Mercurial at all) I still prefer Git. Can I have a Mercurial repository inside a Git one without going mad (or it ruining something)? Or is it something that I should not consider at all? (Or is it a bad question that should be deleted?) ** I think outside of Australia it is called a course

  Read the article

• How do you avoid working on the wrong branch?

  - by henginy

  Being careful is usually enough to prevent problems, but sometimes I need to double check the branch I'm working on (e.g. "hmm... I'm in the dev branch, right?") by checking the source control path of a random file. In looking for an easier way, I thought of naming the solution files accordingly (e.g. MySolution_Dev.sln) but with different file names in each branch, I can't merge the solution files. It's not that big of a deal but are there any methods or "small tricks" you use to quickly ensure you're in the correct branch? I'm using Visual Studio 2010 with TFS 2008.

  Read the article

• How to manage a Closed Source High-Risk Project?

  - by abel

  I am currently planning to develop a J2EE website and wish to bring in 1 developer and 1 web designer to assist me. The project is a financial app with a niche market. I plan to keep the source closed . However, I fear that my would-be employees could easily copy the codebase and use it /sell it to a third party especially when they switch jobs. The app development will take 4-6months and perhaps more and I may have to bring in people after the app goes live. How do I keep the source to myself. Are there techniques companies use to guard their source. I foresee disabling pendrives and dvd writers on my development machines, but uploading data or attaching the code in one's mail would still be possible. My question is incomplete. But programmers who have been in my situation, please advice. How should I go about this? Building a team, maintaining code-secrecy,etc. I am looking forward to sign a secrecy contract with the employees if needed too. (Please add relevant tags) Update Thank you for all the answers. I certainly won't be disabling all USB ports and DVD writers now. But I think I should be logging activity(How exactly should I do that?) I am wary of scalpers who would join and then run off with the existing code. I haven't met any, but I have been advised to be wary of them. I would include a secrecy clause, but given this is a startup with almost no funding and in a highly competitive business niche with bigger players in the field, I doubt I would be able to detect or pursue any scalpers. How do I hire people I trust, when I don't know them personally. Their resume will be helpful but otherwise trust will develop only with time. But finally even if they do run away with the code, it is service that matters after the sale is made. So I am not really worried for the long term.

  Read the article

• Is it good idea to require to commit only working code?

  - by Astronavigator

  Sometimes I hear people saying something like "All committed code must be working". In some articles people even write descriptions how to create svn or git hooks that compile and test code before commit. In my company we usually create one branch for a feature, and one programmer usually works in this branch. I often (1 per 100, I think and as I think with good reason) do non-compilable commits. It seems to me that requirement of "always compilable/stable" commits conflicts with the idea of frequent commits. A programmer would rather make one commit in a week than test the whole project's stability/compilability ten times a day. For only compilable code I use tags and some selected branches (trunk etc). I see these reasons to commit not fully working or not compilable code: If I develop a new feature, it is hard to make it work writing a few lines of code. If I am editing a feature, it is again sometimes hard to keep code working every time. If I am changing some function's prototype or interface, I would also make hundreds of changes, not mechanical changes, but intellectual. Sometimes one of them could cause me to carry out hundreds of commits (but if I want all commits to be stable I should commit 1 time instead of 100). In all these cases to make stable commits I would make commits containing many-many-many changes and it will be very-very-very hard to find out "What happened in this commit?". Another aspect of this problem is that compiling code gives no guarantee of proper working. So is it good idea to require every commit to be stable/compilable? Does it depends on branching model or CVS? In your company, is it forbidden to make non compilable commits? Is it (and why) a bad idea to use only selected branches (including trunk) and tags for stable versions?

  Read the article

• Code base migration - old versioning system to modern

  - by JohnP

  Our current code base is contained in a versioning system that is old and outdated (Visual Sourcesafe 5.0, mid 1990's), and contains a mix of packages that are no longer used, ones that are being used but no longer updated, and newer code. It is also a mix of 4 languages, and includes libraries for some of our systems (Such as Dialogic, Sun Tzu {clipper}) implementations. This breaks down into the following categories: Legacy code - No longer used (Systems that have been retired or replaced, etc) Legacy code - In current use (No intentions for upgrades or minor bug fixes, only major fixes if needed) Current code - In current use, and will be used for future versions/development Support libraries - For both legacy and current code (Some of the legacy libraries are no longer available as well) We would like to migrate this to a newer versioning system as we will be adding more developers, and expanding the reach to include remote programmers. When migrating, how do you structure it? Do you just perform a dump of all the data and then import it into the new system, or do you segregate according to type before you bring it into the new system? Do you set up a separate area for libraries, or keep them with the relevant packages? Do you separate by language, system, both? A general outline and methodology is fine, it doesn't need to be broken down to individual program level.

  Read the article

• Where should the database and mail parameters be stored in a Symfony2 app?

  - by Songo

  In the default folder structure for a Symfony2 project the database and mail server credentials are stored in parameters.yml file inside ProjectRoot/app/config/parameters.yml with these default values: parameters: database_driver: pdo_mysql database_host: 127.0.0.1 database_port: null database_name: symfony database_user: root database_password: null mailer_transport: smtp mailer_host: 127.0.0.1 mailer_user: null mailer_password: null locale: en secret: ThisTokenIsNotSoSecretChangeIt During development we change these parameters to the development database and mail servers. This file is checked into the source code repository. The problem is when we want to deploy to the production server. We are thinking about automating the deployment process by checking out the project from git and deploy it to the production server. The thing is that our project manager has to manually update these parameters after each update. The production database and mail servers parameters are confidential and only our project manager knows them. I need a way to automate this step and suggestion on where to store the production parameters until they are applied?

  Read the article

• How to refactor when all your development is on branches?

  - by Mark

  At my company, all of our development (bug fixes and new features) is done on separate branches. When it's complete, we send it off to QA who tests it on that branch, and when they give us the green light, we merge it into our main branch. This could take anywhere between a day and a year. If we try to squeeze any refactoring in on a branch, we don't know how long it will be "out" for, so it can cause many conflicts when it's merged back in. For example, let's say I want to rename a function because the feature I'm working on is making heavy use of this function, and I found that it's name doesn't really fit its purpose (again, this is just an example). So I go around and find every usage of this function, and rename them all to its new name, and everything works perfectly, so I send it off to QA. Meanwhile, new development is happening, and my renamed function doesn't exist on any of the branches that are being forked off main. When my issue gets merged back in, they're all going to break. Is there any way of dealing with this? It's not like management will ever approve a refactor-only issue so it has to be squeezed in with other work. It can't be developed directly on main because all changes have to go through QA and no one wants to be the jerk that broke main so that he could do a little bit of non-essential refactoring.

  Read the article

• Maintaining a main project line with satellite projects

  - by NickLarsen

  Some projects I work on have a main line of features, but are customizable per customer. Up until now those customizations have been implemented as preferences, but now there are 2 problems with the system... The settings page is getting out of control with features. There are probably some improvements that could be made to the settings UI, but regardless, it is quite cumbersome setting up new instances for new customers. Customers have started asking for customizations which would be more easily maintained as separate threads instead of having tons of customizations code. Optimally I am envisioning some kind of source control in which features are either in the main project line and customizations per customer are maintained in a repo per customer set up. The customizations per project would need to remain separate but if a bug is found and fixed in a particular project, I would need to percolate the fix back to the main line and into all of the other customer repos. The problem is I have never seen this done before, and before spending time trying to find source control that can accommodate this scenario and implement it, I figure it best to ask if anyone has something less complicated or knows of a source control product which can handle this with very little hair pulling.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58  | Next Page >