Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 54/127 | < Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >

  • Any tool to make git build every commit to a branch in a seperate repository?

    - by Wayne
    A git tool that meets the specs below is needed. Does one already exists? If not, I will create a script and make it available on GitHub for others to use or contribute. Is there a completely different and better way to solve the need to build/test every commit to a branch in a git repository? Not just to the latest but each one back to a certain staring point. Background: Our development environment uses a separate continuous integration server which is wonderful. However, it is still necessary to do full builds locally on each developer's PC to make sure the commit won't "break the build" when pushed to the CI server. Unfortunately, with auto unit tests, those build force the developer to wait 10 or 15 minutes for a build every time. To solve this we have setup a "mirror" git repository on each developer PC. So we develop in the main repository but anytime a local full build is needed. We run a couple commands in a in the mirror repository to fetch, checkout the commit we want to build, and build. It's works extremely lovely so we can continue working in the main one with the build going in parallel. There's only one main concern now. We want to make sure every single commit builds and tests fine. But we often get busy and neglect to build several fresh commits. Then if it the build fails you have to do a bisect or manually figure build each interim commit to figure out which one broke. Requirements for this tool. The tool will look at another repo, origin by default, fetch and compare all commits that are in branches to 2 lists of commits. One list must hold successfully built commits and the other lists commits that failed. It identifies any commit or commits not yet in either list and begins to build them in a loop in the order that they were committed. It stops on the first one that fails. The tool appropriately adds each commit to either the successful or failed list after it as attempted to build each one. The tool will ignore any "legacy" commits which are prior to the oldest commit in the success list. This logic makes the starting point possible in the next point. Starting Point. The tool building a specific commit so that, if successful it gets added to the success list. If it is the earliest commit in the success list, it becomes the "starting point" so that none of the commits prior to that are examined for builds. Only linear tree support? Much like bisect, this tool works best on a commit tree which is, at least from it's starting point, linear without any merges. That is, it should be a tree which was built and updated entirely via rebase and fast forward commits. If it fails on one commit in a branch it will stop without building the rest that followed after that one. Instead if will just move on to another branch, if any. The tool must do these steps once by default but allow a parameter to loop with an option to set how many seconds between loops. Other tools like Hudson or CruiseControl could do more fancy scheduling options. The tool must have good defaults but allow optional control. Which repo? origin by default. Which branches? all of them by default. What tool? by default an executable file to be provided by the user named "buildtest", "buildtest.sh" "buildtest.cmd", or buildtest.exe" in the root folder of the repository. Loop delay? run once by default with option to loop after a number of seconds between iterations.

    Read the article

  • How can I rewrite the history of a published git branch in multiple steps?

    - by Frerich Raabe
    I've got a git repository with two branches, master and amazing_new_feature. The latter branch contains the work on, well, an amazing new feature. A colleague and me are both working on the same repository, and the two of us commit to both branches. Now the work on the amazing new feature finished, and a bit more than 100 commits were accumulated in the amazing_new_feature branch. I'd like to clean those commits up a bit (using git rebase -i) before merging the work into master. The issue we're facing is that it's quite a pain to rewrite/reorder all 100 commits in one go. Instead, what I'd like to do is: Rewrite/merge/reorder the first few commits in the amazing_new_feature branch and put the result into a dedicated branch which contains the 'cleaned up' history (say, a amazing_new_feature_ready_for_merge branch). Rebase the remaining amazing_new_feature branch on the amazing_new_feature_ready_for_merge branch. Repeat at 1. My idea is that at some point, all the work from amazing_new_feature should be in amazing_new_feature_ready_for_merge and then I can merge the latter into master. Is this a sensible approach, or are there better/easier/more fool-proff solutions to this problem? I'm especially scared about the second step of the above algorithm since it means rebasing a published branch. IIRC it's a dangerous thing to do.

    Read the article

  • How do I manage multiple development branches in GIT?

    - by Ian
    I have 5 branches of one system - lets call them master, London, Birmingham, Manchester and demo. These differ in only a configuration file and each has its own set of graphics files. When I do some development, I create a temp branch from master, called after the feature, and work on that. When ready to merge I checkout master, and git merge feature to bring in my work. That appears to work just fine. Now I need to get my changes into the other Branches, without losing the differences between then that are there already. How can I do that? I have been having no end of problems with Birmingham geting London's graphics, and with conflicts within the configuration file. When the branch is finally correct, I push it up to a depot, and pull each Branch down to a linux box for final testing, From there the release into production is using rsync (set to ignore the .git repository itself). This phase works just fine also. I am the only developer at the moment, but I need to get the process solid before inviting assistance :)

    Read the article

  • Git development?production workflow – how to set up repo?

    - by Blixt
    I'm working on a relatively small, but fast-changing project (a web application) with a few other developers. We're using Git for source control. We started out creating a stable branch which is what is deployed to the live production web server. The master branch is what is deployed to a secondary "unstable" server for testing purposes. Whenever we felt that the master branch was ready to go live, we merged it into stable. However, we came to a point where we wanted one of the later master commits, but not some of the commits before it, so we used cherry-pick to pull that change into stable. This creates a new commit with the same change as the one in master, and it feels as if we're losing the nice history that Git otherwise provides. Are there better ways of handling this type of unstable/stable deployment model? One solution I thought of was using feature branches, and only ever merging a feature branch into master once we want it to go live. Then we'll tag every deployment instead of having a stable branch.

    Read the article

  • Examples of continuous integration workflow using git

    - by Andrew Barinov
    Can anyone provide a rough outline of their git workflow that complies with continuous integration. E.g. How do you branch? Do you fast forward commits to the master branch? I am primarily working with Rails as well as client and server side Javascript. If anyone can recommend a solid CI technology that's compatible with those, that'd be great. I've looked into Jenkins but would like to check out other good alternatives. To put some context into this, I am planning on transitioning from working as a single developer into working as part of the team. I'd like to start standardizing my own personal workflow so that I can onboard new devs quickly.

    Read the article

  • Wise settings for Git

    - by Marko Apfel
    These settings reflecting my Git-environment. It a result of reading and trying several ideas of input from others. Must-Haves Aliases [alias] ci = commit st = status co = checkout oneline = log --pretty=oneline br = branch la = log --pretty=\"format:%ad %h (%an): %s\" --date=short df = diff dc = diff --cached lg = log -p lol = log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit lola = log --graph --decorate --pretty=oneline --abbrev-commit --all ls = ls-files ign = ls-files -o -i --exclude-standard Colors [color] ui = auto [color "branch"] current = yellow reverse local = yellow remote = green [color "diff"] meta = yellow bold frag = magenta bold old = red bold new = green bold whitespace = red reverse [color "status"] added = green changed = red untracked = cyan Core [core] autocrlf = true excludesfile = c:/Users/<user>/.gitignore editor = 'C:/Program Files (x86)/Notepad++/notepad++.exe' -multiInst -notabbar -nosession –noPlugin Nice to have Merge and Diff [merge] tool = kdiff3 [mergetool "kdiff3"] path = c:/Program Files (x86)/KDiff3/kdiff3.exe [mergetool "p4merge"] path = c:/Program Files (x86)/Perforce Merge/p4merge.exe cmd = p4merge \"$BASE\" \"$LOCAL\" \"$REMOTE\" \"$MERGED\" keepTemporaries = false trustExitCode = false keepBackup = false [diff] guitool = kdiff3 [difftool "kdiff3"] path = c:/Program Files (x86)/KDiff3/kdiff3.exe [difftool "p4merge"] path = C:/Users/<user>/My Applications/Perforce Merge/p4merge.exe cmd = \"p4merge.exe $LOCAL $REMOTE\" .

    Read the article

  • iOS: Versioned static frameworks vs Git Submodules and included code

    - by drekka
    For the last couple of years I've been building static frameworks of common APIs for my iOS projects. I can build a universal binary containing all the architectures (i386, armv6, armv7) and wrap it up in a .framework directory structure. I then stored this in a directory based on the version of the framework. For example ..../myAPI/v0.1.0/myAPI.framework Once I have this framework I can then easily add it to a project and if I want to advance the version, merely change the framework search paths to the later version. This works, but the approach is very similar to what I would use in the Java world. Recently I've been reading about using Git submodules and static framework sub projects in XCode 4. Im wondering if my currently approach is something that I should consider retiring and what the pros/cons are of the new approach. I'm weary of just including code because I've already had issues in a work project which had (effectively) multiple versions of a third party API. Any opinions?

    Read the article

  • Handling (many) multiple projects in Git in an enterprise environment

    - by Michael K
    One of the advantages of older version control systems such as CVS and SVN in enterprise development is that anyone can connect to source control and see all the projects that the company has. This can make it easier to get a high level view of what kid of development is happening outside your sprint and also keeps everything in one place and easy to find. However, distributed version control systems (Git, specifically) use the repository as their base unit. They work best with one project (or several closely related projects) per repository. This makes repository management more difficult in most enterprise environments where it is not unusual to have more than 25-50 projects to support. As far as I have been able to determine, you have to keep a list somewhere else of all the repos you have. There is software available, like GitHub, that help, but that still is an extra step beyond a single connection string and listing the contents of the repository. What is the best way to deal with the complexity of multiple repositories?

    Read the article

  • How to force rebase when same changes applied to both branches manually?

    - by Dmitry
    My repository looks like: X - Y- A - B - C - D - E branch:master \ \ \ \ merge master -> release \ \ M --- BCDE --- N branch:release Here "M - BCDE - N" are manually (unfortunately!) applied changes approximately same as separate commits "A - B - C - D - E" (but seems GIT does not know that these changes are the same). I'd like to rebase and get the following structure: X - Y- A - B - C - D - E branch:master \ * branch:release I.e. I want to make branch:release to be exactly the same as branch:master and fork it from the master's HEAD. But when I run "git rebase master" sitting at the branch release, GIT reports about lots of conflicts and refuces rebasing. How could I solve this? Other explaination of this: I'd like to "re-create" branch:release from scratch from master's HEAD. And there are a lot of other people who had already made "git pull" for the branch:release, so I cannot use git reset + git push -f.

    Read the article

  • What's happened to my directory on GitHub?

    - by Greg K
    I added a new subdir within my git respository: git add feeds Then commited this and pushed it up to GitHub but it seems as though I've commited a symlink / shortcut but not the actual directory and files within. See here: http://github.com/G4EGK/RSS-Reader Any idea what 'feeds' is? I'd like to remove that and correctly add my files. I tried the following but git status said nothing had changed: git rm feeds git add feeds/\*.php To remove feeds do I run the following? git filter-branch --tree-filter 'rm -f feeds' HEAD

    Read the article

  • Translate parse_git_branch function to zsh from bash (for prompt)

    - by yar
    I am using this function in Bash function parse_git_branch { git_status="$(git status 2> /dev/null)" pattern="^# On branch ([^${IFS}]*)" if [[ ! ${git_status}} =~ "working directory clean" ]]; then state="*" fi # add an else if or two here if you want to get more specific if [[ ${git_status} =~ ${pattern} ]]; then branch=${BASH_REMATCH[1]} echo "(${branch}${state})" fi } but I'm determined to use zsh. While I can use this perfectly as a shell script (even without a shebang) in my .zshrc the error is a parse error on this line if [[ ! ${git_status}}... What do I need to do to get it ready for zshell? Edit: The "actual error" I'm getting is " parse error near } and it refers to the line with the strange double }}, which works on Bash. Edit: Here's the final code, just for fun: parse_git_branch() { git_status="$(git status 2> /dev/null)" pattern="^# On branch ([^[:space:]]*)" if [[ ! ${git_status} =~ "working directory clean" ]]; then state="*" fi if [[ ${git_status} =~ ${pattern} ]]; then branch=${match[1]} echo "(${branch}${state})" fi } setopt PROMPT_SUBST PROMPT='$PR_GREEN%n@$PR_GREEN%m%u$PR_NO_COLOR:$PR_BLUE%2c$PR_NO_COLOR%(!.#.$)' RPROMPT='$PR_GREEN$(parse_git_branch)$PR_NO_COLOR' Thanks to everybody for your patience and help. Edit: The best answer has schooled us all: git status is porcelain (UI). Good scripting goes against GIT plumbing. Here's the final function: parse_git_branch() { in_wd="$(git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree 2>/dev/null)" || return test "$in_wd" = true || return state='' git diff-index HEAD --quiet 2>/dev/null || state='*' branch="$(git symbolic-ref HEAD 2>/dev/null)" test -z "$branch" && branch='<detached-HEAD>' echo "(${branch#refs/heads/}${state})" } PROMPT='$PR_GREEN%n@$PR_GREEN%m%u$PR_NO_COLOR:$PR_BLUE%2c$PR_NO_COLOR%(!.#.$)' RPROMPT='$PR_GREEN$(parse_git_branch)$PR_NO_COLOR' Note that only the prompt is zsh-specific. In Bash it would be your prompt plus "\$(parse_git_branch)". This might be slower (more calls to GIT, but that's an empirical question) but it won't be broken by changes in GIT (they don't change the plumbing). And that is very important for a good script moving forward. Days Later: Ugh, it turns out that diff-index HEAD is NOT the same as checking status against working directory clean. So will this mean another plumbing call? I surely don't have time/expertise to write my own porcelain....

    Read the article

  • Dependent on CVS tagging for automated builds

    - by OMG Ponies
    My current work relies on using tags in CVS for an automated build process (ANT currently) to build for respective environments (development, QA, production). From our research, neither Git or Subversion support tagging in the same manner. If we use Subversion or Git, they don't support tags (in the same manner - please correct me?). So how would ANT or Maven know what to pick up for the respective build? Example: For a webapp, when viewing our repository say for the web.xml file -- the history would look like: web.xml v1 ... web.xml v1.2.3 Tag: Prod web.xml v1.2.4 web.xml v1.2.5 Tag: QA web.xml v1.2.6 web.xml v1.2.7 Head The ANT build scripts are run as CRON jobs, at different times & intervals for different environments. The environment build is based on the repository checkout, based on the tag. Development continues, and eventually the respective tags are moved: web.xml v1 ... web.xml v1.2.3 web.xml v1.2.4 web.xml v1.2.5 web.xml v1.2.6 Tag: Prod web.xml v1.2.7 Tag: QA web.xml v1.2.8 Head

    Read the article

  • What's a good approach to adding debug code to your application when you want more info about what's going wrong?

    - by Andrei
    When our application doesn't work the way we expect it to (e.g. throws exceptions etc.), I usually insert a lot of debug code at certain points in the application in order to get a better overview of what exactly is going on, what the values for certain objects are, to better trace where this error is triggered from. Then I send a new installer to the user(s) that are having the problem and if the problem is triggered again I look at the logs and see what they say. But I don't want all this debug code to be in the production code, since this would create some really big debug files with information that is not always relevant. The other problem is that our code base changes, and the next time, the same debug code might have to go in different parts of the application. Questions Is there a way to merge this debug code within the production code only when needed and have it appear at the correct points within the application? Can it be done with a version control system like git so that all would be needed is a git merge? P.S. The application I'm talking about now is .NET, written in C#.

    Read the article

  • What's so difficult about SVN merges? [closed]

    - by Mason Wheeler
    Possible Duplicate: I’m a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS? Every once in a while, you hear someone saying that distributed version control (Git, HG) is inherently better than centralized version control (like SVN) because merging is difficult and painful in SVN. The thing is, I've never had any trouble with merging in SVN, and since you only ever hear that claim being made by DVCS advocates, and not by actual SVN users, it tends to remind me of those obnoxious commercials on TV where they try to sell you something you don't need by having bumbling actors pretend that the thing you already have and works just fine is incredibly difficult to use. And the use case that's invariably brought up is re-merging a branch, which again reminds me of those strawman product advertisements; if you know what you're doing, you shouldn't (and shouldn't ever have to) re-merge a branch in the first place. (Of course it's difficult to do when you're doing something fundamentally wrong and silly!) So, discounting the ridiculous strawman use case, what is there in SVN merging that is inherently more difficult than merging in a DVCS system?

    Read the article

  • Can MKS Integrity integrate with other source control tools? (SVN, Git...)

    - by bnsmith
    My boss is interested in using MKS Integrity for bug tracking, feature requests, Wiki documentation and so on. However, we currently use Subversion, and he doesn't want to force us devs to use a version control system that we don't like. Is is possible to integrate a different version control program into MKS Integrity? I'm particularly interested in SVN, Git, Mercurial and Bazaar. If you've tried mixing tools like this before, I'd love to hear about your experiences.

    Read the article

  • Understanding branching strategy/workflow correctly

    - by burnersk
    I'm using svn without branches (trunk-only) for a very long time at my workplace. I had discovered most or all of the issues related to projects which do not have any branching strategy. Unlikely this is not going to change at my workplace but for my private projects. For my private projects which most includes coworkers and working together at the same time on different features I like to have an robust branching strategy with supports long-term releases powered by git. I find out that the Atlassian Toolchain (JIRA, Stash and Bamboo) helped me most and it also recommending me an branching strategy which I like to verify for the team needs. The branching strategy was taken directly from Atlassian Stash recommendation with a small modification to the hotfix branch tree. All hotfixes should also merged into mainline. The branching strategy in words mainline (also known as master with git or trunk with svn) contains the "state of the art" developing release. Everything here was successfully checked with various automated tests (through Bamboo) and looks like everything is working. It is not proven as working because of possible missing tests. It is ready to use but not recommended for production. feature covers all new features which are not completely finished. Once a feature is finished it will be merged into mainline. Sample branch: feature/ISSUE-2-A-nice-Feature bugfix fixes non-critical bugs which can wait for the next normal release. Sample branch: bugfix/ISSUE-1-Some-typos production owns the latest release. hotfix fixes critical bugs which have to be release urgent to mainline, production and all affected long-term *release*es. Sample branch: hotfix/ISSUE-3-Check-your-math release is for long-term maintenance. Sample branches: release/1.0, release/1.1 release/1.0-rc1 I am not an expert so please provide me feedback. Which problems might appear? Which parts are missing or slowing down the productivity?

    Read the article

  • Git: Can I commit my working directory to a new branch without commiting it to a current branch?

    - by Noli
    Somewhat new at Git.. I am working on a project, and had all of my tests passing on the master branch. I then made some changes, and when everything started failing, I realized that maybe I should have made those changes in a different branch. Is there I way I can commit the changes to a new branch without commiting them to my master branch, so that the master still has my passing tests?

    Read the article

  • Many small scripts, one repository or multiple?

    - by The Jug
    A co-worker and myself have run into an issue that we have multiple opinions on. Currently we have a git repository that we are keeping all of our cronjobs in. There are about 20 crons and they are not really related except for the fact that they are all small python scripts and essential for some activity. We are using a fabric.py file to deploy and a requirements.txt file to manage requirements for all of the scripts. Our issue is basically, do we keep all of these scripts in one git repository or should we be separating them out into their own repositories? By keeping them in one repository it is easier to deploy them onto one server. We can use just one cron file for all the scripts. However this feels wrong, as the 20 cronjobs are not logically related. Additionally, when using one requirements.txt file for all the scripts, it's hard to figure out what the dependencies are for a particular script and they all have to use the same versions of packages. We could separate all of the scripts out into their own repositories but this creates 20 different repositories that need to be remembered and dealt with. Most of these scripts are not very large and that solution seems to be overkill. A related question is, do we use one big crontab file for all cronjobs, or a separate file for each? If each has their own, how does one crontab's installation avoid overwriting the other 19? This also seems like a pain as there would then by 20 different cron files to keep track of. In short, our main question and issue is do we keep them all closely bundled as one repository or do we separate them out into their own repository with their own requirements.txt and fabfile.py? We feel like we're also probably looking over some really simple solution. Is there an easier way to deal with this issue?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61  | Next Page >