Search Results

Search found 5492 results on 220 pages for 'git fetch'.

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 55/220 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Fetch new Mails (Also from Subfolders) from another IMAP server as new Mail in Postfix

    - by Tobi
    everyone. I have installed Postfix on a server with Aliases and Domains from a MySQL Database. It is configured to forward some adresses to other Mail Accounts and also delivers some mails in local mailboxes that will be queried over a dovecot imap server. For this example let there be two users: [email protected] what is a user that gets its mail just forwarded to let's say [email protected] [email protected] what is a user that accesses its mail from local IMAP. Now, I want to fetch some Mails from another mailserver and handle them as if they were sent to a user of my Mailserver. Lets say those corelations exist: [email protected] has two external accounts: [email protected] and [email protected] [email protected] has also one external account [email protected] The Problem is the new mails on that other Mailserver is not always in the inbox, it might be in subdirectories: mailinglists/all or mailinglists/it but also in mailinglists/some-other-department which is not interesting and should not be delivered. I already found a programm called fetchmail but I cannot find how to fetch subdirectories or decide which subdirectories are fetched.

    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

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 | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >