Search Results

Search found 3166 results on 127 pages for 'git p4'.

Page 53/127 | < Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >

• Save/restore git/cvs checkout changes when switching branches?

  - by Dale Forester

  Using cvs, git or another technique (file system level?), I would like to: Make modifications on branch A Checkout branch B: Changes to branch A are "stowed away" (by name would be nice), branch B is checked out such that my branch A changes are gone Make modifications on branch B Checkout branch A: Changes to branch B are "stowed away" (by name would be nice), branch A is checked out such that my branch B changes are gone but now my "saved" branch A changes from Step #2 are back Git-stash does not appear to fit the flow I'm describing although my impression could be wrong. Techniques involving RCS's or file system or command-line tools or otherwise are welcome.

  Read the article

• How to export all changed/added files from Git?

  - by dr Hannibal Lecter

  Hi all! I am very new to Git and I have a slight problem. In SVN [this feels like an Only Fools and Horses story by uncle Albert.."during the war..."] when I wanted to update a production site with my latest changes, I'd do a diff in TSVN and export all the changed/added files between two revisions. As you can imagine, it was easy to get those files to a production site afterwards. However, it seems like I'm unable to find an "export changed files" option in Git. I can do a diff and see the changes, I can get a list of files, but I can't actually export them. Is there a reasonable way to do this? Am I missing something simple? Just to clarify once again, I need to export all the changes between two specific commits. Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• How can I "git log" only code published to trunk?

  - by Russell Silva

  At my workplace we have a "master" trunk branch that represents published code. To make a change, I check out a working copy, create a topic branch, commit to the topic branch, merge the topic branch into master, and push. For small changes, I might commit directly to master, then push. My problem is that when I use "git log", I don't care about my topic branches in my local working copy. I only want to see the changes to the master branch on the remote, shared git server. What's more, if I use --stat or -p or one of their friends, I want to see the files and changes associated with the merge commit to master, not associated to their original branch commits (which, like I said, I don't want to see at all). How do I go about doing this?

  Read the article

• How do I convert my SVN repository to Git while preserving branches?

  - by Alexander

  Some help please. This doesn't seem to do it for me: git svn clone --stdlayout --authors-file=../authors.txt file:///home/path

  Read the article

• Why use a Rails-like deployment mechanism over 'git pull' for releasing?

  - by Chad Johnson

  To release my centralized webapp, I COULD have a vhost pointed to some directory and then just do a 'git pull' when I want to release, updating the files. But Rails has a different deployment mechanism: it copies files to a subdirectory and then points a symlink ('current') to that new subdirectory. I understand that it probably more acceptable to do a Rails-like deployment because the release is built in some directory, and then the symlink is pointed to that directory, so this is much faster, and it's less likely that users would experience weird issues while a release is happening. Are there any other advantages to the Rails approach? Or, is a 'git pull' approach actually more widely accepted?

  Read the article

• Is it good to commit files often if using Mercurial or Git?

  - by Jian Lin

  It seems that it is suggested we can commit often to keep track of intermediate changes of code we wrote… such as on hginit.com, when using Mercurial or Git. However, let's say if we work on a project, and we commit files often. Now for one reason or another, the manager wants part of the feature to go out, so we need to do a push, but I heard that on Mercurial or Git, there is no way to push individual files or a folder… either everything committed gets pushed or nothing get pushed. So we either have to revert all those files we don't want to push, or we just never should commit until before we push -- right after commit, we push?

  Read the article

• Rolling back or re-creating the master branch in git?

  - by Matthew Savage

  I have a git repo which has a few branches - there's the master branch, which is our stable working version, and then there is a development/staging branch which we're doing new work in. Unfortunately it would appear that without thinking I was a bit overzealous with rebasing and have pulled all of the staging code into Master over a period of time (about 80 commits... yes, I know, stupid, clumsy, poor code-man-ship etc....). Due to this it makes it very hard for me to do minor fixes on the current version of our app (a rails application) and push out the changes without also pushing out the 'staged' new features which we don't yet want to release. I am wondering if it is possible to do the following: Determine the last 'trunk' commit Take all commits from that point onward and move them into a separate branch, more or less rolling back the changes Start using the branches like they were made for. Unfortunately, though, I'm still continually learning about git, so I'm a bit confused about what to really do here. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to rebase one Git repository onto another one?

  - by kroimon

  Hi there! I had one Git repository (A) which contains the development of a project until a certain point. Then I lost the USB stick this repo A was on. Luckily I had a backup of the latest commit, so I could create a new repository (B) later where I imported the latest project's state and continue development. Now I recovered that lost USB stick, so I have two Git repositories. I think I just have to rebase repo B onto repo A somehow, but I have no idea how to do that, maybe using fetch/pull and rebase? Thanks in advance for your help!

  Read the article

• Why does git hash-object return a different hash than openssl sha1?

  - by user657606

  Context: I downloaded a file (Audirvana 0.7.1.zip) from code.google to my Macbook Pro (Mac OS X 10.6.6). (current url: http://code.google.com/p/audirvana/downloads/detail?name=Audirvana%200.7.1.zip&can=2&q= ) I wanted to verify the checksum, which for that particular file is posted as 862456662a11e2f386ff0b24fdabcb4f6c1c446a (SHA-1). git hash-object gave me a different hash, but openssl sha1 returned the expected 862456662a11e2f386ff0b24fdabcb4f6c1c446a. The following experiment seems to rule out any possible download corruption or newline differences and to indicate that there are actually two different algorithms at play: $ echo A > foo.txt $ cat foo.txt A $ git hash-object foo.txt f70f10e4db19068f79bc43844b49f3eece45c4e8 $ openssl sha1 foo.txt SHA1(foo.txt)= 7d157d7c000ae27db146575c08ce30df893d3a64 What's going on?

  Read the article

• git: Switch branch and ignore any changes without committing.

  - by boyfarrell

  Hello, I have got the git branch I'm working on to a nice place. So I make a commit with a useful commit message. I then absentmindedly make minor changes to the code that are not work keeping. I now want to changes branches, but git gives me, error: You have local changes to "X"; cannot switch branches. I thought that I could change branches without committing? If so how can I set this up. If not, how do I get out of this problem? I want to ignore the minor changes without committing and just changes branches! Cheers, Dan

  Read the article

• Find git branch that got pushed to a bare repository.

  - by Senthil A Kumar

  Lets have 2 repositories, one containing the actual data repo and a bare repository which is loaded with deltas from the actual data repository by doing a git push from data repo to bare repo. Hope you have understood the model that am using here. Am creating clones by cloning the bare repo, and i will be pushing from the branches in my local clone to the branches in bare repository. When am pushing data from my branch to bare repo, the data is automatically synced to the data repo by a hook. The question i have - is there a way to find from which branch a code has come to the bare repo. I can see the source and target branch during a git push, but after pushing can i see from logs or other way to identify from which branch and repository the data has been pushed from? If there are 5 developers pushing to bare repo, can i find in the bare repo from which branch and clone a code is pushed?

  Read the article

• What would the git analog of hginit.com be?

  - by Bribles

  Is there an introduction to the world of git that has a similar style and structure as Hg Init?

  Read the article

• Clear list of recent repositories in Git Extensions

  - by Marko Apfel

  Orphaned and wrong specified repositories in the recent list are annoying. Straightaway I does not found an option to clean this entries. And also not the persistence place for that. So it was time for Process Explorer. The storage happens under: HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\GitExtensions\GitExtensions\1.0.0.0 in the string value “history” You could edit the content of the string value or delete it – than during restarting Git Extensions the string value will be created with a default skeleton.

  Read the article

• 10 Git Tips and Tricks for Beginners

  Making the switch from the CVS or Subversion version control system to Git? These 10 pointers will make for a smooth transition.

  Read the article

• 10 Git Tips and Tricks for Beginners

  <b>Developer.com: </b>"Like many technologies, Git's shallow learning curve encourages adoption, yet it offers so many features and options that it can easily overwhelm beginners."

  Read the article

• Beginner&amp;#8217;s Guide to Git

  <b>Make Tech Easier:</b> "Git is the revision control system created by the Linux kernel&#8217;s famous Linus Torvalds due to a lack of satisfaction with existing solutions. The main emphasis in the design was on speed, or more specifically, efficiency."

  Read the article

• Tool to identify potential reviewers for a proposed change

  - by Lorin Hochstein

  Is there a tool that takes as input a proposed patch and a git repository, and identifies the developers are the best candidates for reviewing the patch? It would use the git history to identify the authors that have the most experience with the files / sections of code that are being changed. Edit: The use case is a large open source project (OpenStack Compute), where merge proposals come in, and I see a merge proposal on a chunk of code I'm not familiar with, and I want to add somebody else's name to the list of suggested reviewers so that person gets a notification to look at the merge proposal.

  Read the article

• Advice Needed: Developers blocked by waiting on code to merge from another branch using GitFlow

  - by fogwolf

  Our team just made the switch from FogBugz & Kiln/Mercurial to Jira & Stash/Git. We are using the Git Flow model for branching, adding subtask branches off of feature branches (relating to Jira subtasks of Jira features). We are using Stash to assign a reviewer when we create a pull request to merge back into the parent branch (usually develop but for subtasks back into the feature branch). The problem we're finding is that even with the best planning and breakdown of feature cases, when multiple developers are working together on the same feature, say on the front-end and back-end, if they are working on interdependent code that is in separate branches one developer ends up blocking the other. We've tried pulling between each others' branches as we develop. We've also tried creating local integration branches each developer can pull from multiple branches to test the integration as they develop. Finally, and this seems to work possibly the best for us so far, though with a bit more overhead, we have tried creating an integration branch off of the feature branch right off the bat. When a subtask branch (off of the feature branch) is ready for a pull request and code review, we also manually merge those change sets into this feature integration branch. Then all interested developers are able to pull from that integration branch into other dependent subtask branches. This prevents anyone from waiting for any branch they are dependent upon to pass code review. I know this isn't necessarily a Git issue - it has to do with working on interdependent code in multiple branches, mixed with our own work process and culture. If we didn't have the strict code-review policy for develop (true integration branch) then developer 1 could merge to develop for developer 2 to pull from. Another complication is that we are also required to do some preliminary testing as part of the code review process before handing the feature off to QA.This means that even if front-end developer 1 is pulling directly from back-end developer 2's branch as they go, if back-end developer 2 finishes and his/her pull request is sitting in code review for a week, then front-end developer 2 technically can't create his pull request/code review because his/her code reviewer can't test because back-end developer 2's code hasn't been merged into develop yet. Bottom line is we're finding ourselves in a much more serial rather than parallel approach in these instance, depending on which route we go, and would like to find a process to use to avoid this. Last thing I'll mention is we realize by sharing code across branches that haven't been code reviewed and finalized yet we are in essence using the beta code of others. To a certain extent I don't think we can avoid that and are willing to accept that to a degree. Anyway, any ideas, input, etc... greatly appreciated. Thanks!

  Read the article

• What is a resonable workflow for designing webapps?

  - by Evan Plaice

  It has been a while since I have done any substantial web development and I'd like to take advantage of the latest practices but I'm struggling to visualize the workflow to incorporate everything. Here's what I'm looking to use: CakePHP framework jsmin (JavaScript Minify) SASS (Synctactically Awesome StyleSheets) Git CakePHP: Pretty self explanatory, make modifications and update the source. jsmin: When you modify a script, do you manually run jsmin to output the new minified code, or would it be better to run a pre-commit hook that automatically generates jsmin outputs of javascript files that have changed. Assume that I have no knowledge of implementing commit hooks. SASS: I really like what SASS has to offer but I'm also aware that SASS code isn't supported by browsers by default so, at some point, the SASS code needs to be transformed to normal CSS. At what point in the workflow is this done. Git I'm terrified to admit it but, the last time I did any substantial web development, I didn't use SCM source control (IE, I did use source control but it consisted of a very detailed change log with backups). I have since had plenty of experience using Git (as well as mercurial and SVN) for desktop development but I'm wondering how to best implement it for web development). Is it common practice to implement a remote repository on the web host so I can push the changes directly to the production server, or is there some cross platform (windows/linux) tool that makes it easy to upload only changed files to the production server. Are there web hosting companies that make it eas to implement a remote repository, do I need SSH access, etc... I know how to accomplish this on my own testing server with a remote repository with a separate remote tracking branch already but I've never done it on a remote production web hosting server before so I'm not aware of the options yet. Extra: I was considering implementing a javascript framework where separate javascript files used on a page are compiled into a single file for each page on the production server to limit the number of file downloads needed per page. Does something like this already exist? Is there already an open source project out in the wild that implements something similar that I could use and contribute to? Considering how paranoid web devs are about performance (and the fact that the number of file requests on a website is a big hit to performance) I'm guessing that there is some wizard hacker on the net who has already addressed this issue.

  Read the article

• Is Perforce as good as merging as DVCSs?

  - by dukeofgaming

  I've heard that Perforce is very good at merging, I'm guessing this has to do with that it tracks changes in the form of changelists where you can add differences across several files in a single blow. I think this implies Perforce gathers more metadata and therefore has more information to do smarter merging (at least smarter than Subversion, being Perforce centralized). Since this is similar to how Mercurial and Git handle changes (I know DVCSs track content rather than files), I was wondering if somebody knew what were the subtle differences that makes Perforce better or worse than a DVCS like Mercurial or Git.

  Read the article

• Is there a decent way to maintain development of wordpress sites using the same base?

  - by Joakim Johansson

  We've been churning out wordpress sites for a while, and we'd like to keep a base repository that can be used when starting a new project, as well as updating existing sites with changes to the wordpress base. Am I wrong in assuming this would be a good thing? We take care of updating the sites, so having a common base would make this easier. I've been looking at solutions using git, such as forking a base repository and using it to pull changes to the wordpress base, but committing the site to it's own repository. Or maybe, if it's possible, storing the base as a git submodule, but this would require storing themes and plugins outside of that. Is there any common way to go about this kind of website development?

  Read the article

• Is Perforce as good at merging as DVCSs?

  - by dukeofgaming

  I've heard that Perforce is very good at merging, I'm guessing this has to do with that it tracks changes in the form of changelists where you can add differences across several files in a single blow. I think this implies Perforce gathers more metadata and therefore has more information to do smarter merging (at least smarter than Subversion, being Perforce centralized). Since this is similar to how Mercurial and Git handle changes (I know DVCSs track content rather than files), I was wondering if somebody knew what were the subtle differences that makes Perforce better or worse than a DVCS like Mercurial or Git.

  Read the article

• Which VCS is efficient for storing small changes to big text files?

  - by MiguelM

  A government agency publishes a text file with thousands of records. The entire file is about 60MB. Every day the file has about 60 new or changed records. We need to validate some info against that file, and for auditing purposes, we may need to recover the file as it was in certain date. I thought I could use a VCS to store the file using git, but I understand git stores the entire text file gzipped, so the 60BM file will still need about 30MB to store everyday version. I wonder if one of the free VCS stores only diff/patch files.

  Read the article

• Instructions on using TortoiseGit to interact with an SVN repository?

  - by markerikson

  I've been using TortoiseSVN on Windows for years with local filesystem repositories for my own projects. I'm planning to start collaborating with a friend on one of the projects, and will be shifting the repository to my own website. I've read a lot of "git beats SVN!" posts over the last couple years, and figured I ought to at least see what the fuss was about. Some research turned up the "git svn" command, and that TortoiseGit claims to have some level of git-svn support. I like the idea of keeping the SVN repository, and doing some local commits or branches with git before committing them to the repository. The "shelve" command also sounds useful. Unfortunately, while there's a number of CLI git-svn tutorials, there's nothing for TortoiseGit (which admittedly seems to be still in early development). As a result, I'm having problems trying to figure out what workflow I need to get these pieces to cooperate. I have an SVN repository in D:\Projects\repositories\MyProject. I created D:\Projects\temp\gittest, and tried to do a TortoiseGit "Git Clone" of the repository. From there, I've had issues trying to indicate the location of the trunk/branches/tags folders (which are just the standard layout in my repository). I was only able to get useful results when I left those unchecked. When I did seem to get the git repository started correctly, I was able to make some changes and do a couple git commits, but then had problems doing an SVN DCommit. So, I'm hoping someone out there can provide a reasonably detailed set of instructions on how to correctly use TortoiseGit with an existing SVN repository (with the repository on either the local filesystem or on a remote server). No "don't use SVN!" responses, please - I'm interested in learning how to get these two pieces to work together. If you feel TortoiseGit's SVN support isn't mature enough to make this work, that would also be useful information. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Automatically stashing

  - by Readonly

  The section Last links in the chain: Stashing and the reflog in http://ftp.newartisans.com/pub/git.from.bottom.up.pdf recommends stashing often to take snapshots of your work in progress. The author goes as far as recommending that you can use a cron job to stash your work regularly, without having to do a stash manually. The beauty of stash is that it lets you apply unobtrusive version control to your working process itself: namely, the various stages of your working tree from day to day. You can even use stash on a regular basis if you like, with something like the following snapshot script: $ cat <<EOF > /usr/local/bin/git-snapshot #!/bin/sh git stash && git stash apply EOF $ chmod +x $_ $ git snapshot There’s no reason you couldn’t run this from a cron job every hour, along with running the reflog expire command every week or month. The problem with this approach is: If there are no changes to your working copy, the "git stash apply" will cause your last stash to be applied over your working copy. There could be race conditions between when the cron job executes and the user working on the working copy. For example, "git stash" runs, then the user opens the file, then the script's "git stash apply" is executed. Does anybody have suggestions for making this automatic stashing work more reliably?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >