Search Results

Search found 4296 results on 172 pages for 'git clone'.

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 59/172 | < Previous Page | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Windows 7 disk backup and clone for deployment to multiple systems

    - by gregmac
    I'm in the process of deploying some new PCs (there's only 8), all identical hardware. What I'd like to do is install Windows 7 (64bit), join to domain etc, install a bunch of other software, and then clone that drive to multiple other machines. I'd also like to be able to use it as a backup image, so the machine can be restored back to that image at some future date. I understand this involves at least sysprep, but I am confused after reading some tutorials that talk about using Windows Automated Installation Kit, or hacks with the registry and custom-build batch files. This process seems overly complex to me: I did something similar 10+ years ago, and and don't remember it being this bad. Surely things have improved in a decade? There's also some products that involve having network servers running deployment software, network boot, etc etc.. this is way more than I want to set up. My systems are all identical hardware. Is there a simplified way to clone PCs? Preferably (since I'm a lazy developer, and not an IT admin) I'd like to find some off-the-shelf product that I can run after I get the machine setup, that will spit out a bootable DVD I can run on all the other systems, which will boot up, ask for a computer name, join it to the domain, and that's it. Does such as product exist?

    Read the article

  • Controlling clone access to multiple mercurial repos served via hgwebdir.cgi

    - by chrislawlor
    I'm trying to host multiple hg repositories to use for my clients. I need to control access to each repository individually - not just push access, but clone as well. I've got an .htaccess set which requires authentication globally: AuthUserFile /path/to/hgweb.passwd AuthGroupFile /dev/null AuthName "Chris Lawlor Client Mercurial Repositories" AuthType Basic <Limit GET POST PUT> Require valid-user </Limit> <FilesMatch "\.(htaccess|passwd|config|bak)$"> Order Allow,Deny Deny from all </FilesMatch> Then in each repository, I've got a .hg/hgrc file requiring a valid user [web] allow_push = <comma seperated user list> This almost does what I need. The problem is that I need to add ALL my clients to hgweb.passwd, which gives them clone access to ALL of the repositories. The only solution I can think of is to have another .htaccess and .passwd file in EACH repository. I don't really want to do that though, seems a little convoluted. I can already specify a list of authorized users for each repository in that repos' hgrc file with the allow_push setting. If only there were an allow_clone setting as well... All the documentation I've found for hgwebdir.cgi is incomplete. I've read: http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/HgWebDirStepByStep http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/collaborating-with-other-people.html#sec:collab:cgi http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/collaborating-with-other-people.html And others. I've yet to find a comprehensive list of hgrc settings. I guess this is as much an Apache question than a mercurial question. Unless I can find a better approach, I'll be going with a seperate .htaccess and .passwd file for each repo. This is a virtual host on Webfaction if it matters - set up roughly like this http://docs.webfaction.com/software/mercurial.html

    Read the article

  • Take a regular Windows 7 clone with clonezilla (device-to-image)

    - by Mario De Schaepmeester
    I am unexperienced with cloning software and I've decided to use Clonezilla as it seemed best as freeware. I chose device image and left most options standard. I chose expert mode anyway to see what I could configure, and decided to try the lzop algorithm instead of the default one for compression. The rest was left at default. When Clonezilla asked me which partitions to clone (I chose parts to image), I chose the C:\ drive but Windows 7 also creates a 100MB partition on setup for system files (the actual boot partition?). I copied that into the image as well. The reason I didn't choose disk to image is that I also have a data partition that needs to stay intact. Now I'm simply not sure that this is the way to go, should I ever need to restore my disk image. Will Clonezilla know what to do with both partitions and will Windows 7 work perfectly after restoring? Edit: apparantly a similar question has been asked before. The link to the first article in the answer is not relevant to me since it covers a device-to-device clone. It appears the windows installation disk can repair the 100MB partition. As for Clonezilla, it copies "hidden data after the MBR" by default too. I don't know, I feel I'll be allright whether by restoring the partition with Clonezilla or repairing it with the Windows 7 disk.

    Read the article

  • newbie hard drive upgrade question

    - by musoNic80
    I have an Acer Aspire 3500WLMi laptop. It currently has a 40gb hard drive which I would like to upgrade. Could someone talk me through the process? I've listed my concerns/queries... Can I buy and install any 2.5" SATA or IDE hard drive into this machine? Should I buy somesort of USB caddy and clone my existing drive onto the new one via USB then physically swap the drives over? My current disk is partitioned to include a small amount of space for a Ubuntu install. Will a clone keep the current partition sizes or is it best for me to repartition once I've cloned? Many thanks.

    Read the article

  • Cloning a USB flash drive to another larger one, is it safe to do so?

    - by Rob Kam
    I used Acronis True Image Home 2010 to clone a Dane-Elec zLight 8Gb pen drive/USB flash drive to a PNY Attaché 16Gb USB flash drive. Now WinXP shows the drive in device manager as USB DISK 2.0 USB DEVICE but doesn't have it in My Computer/doesn't assign it a drive letter. What is it that has messed up the PNY Attaché and is there some way to repair it so that it can be used as a regular USB flash drive again? Is there a safe way to clone a USB flash drive to another larger one? How safe is it to backup and restore a USB flash drive to/from a drive-image?

    Read the article

  • Reimage several of the same model PC by copying the hard disk

    - by Tim Lehner
    I have several of the same machine (Dell Precision T3500) that originally came with Windows 7 Pro (there is a Windows 7 Pro OA product key sticker on top of each one). These were initially downgraded to XP by a former IT colleague, but are now back in the pool of unused machines. I am looking to format and install Windows 7 Pro on one of them using the latest official Win7 installer ISO with SP1 and then clone the hard drive to the other machines. The questions then, are: Does this even make sense, or is there a better way to do this considering I'm only doing it to 6 machines? Does this jive with MS licensing (we are the original purchaser of the machines, and thus, presumably, the license holder...but I'm no expert)? Is it possible to apply the individual 25-char product keys to the cloned machines after cloning? How far can I go in the config process (installing corporate standard apps and such) before I have to clone to the other machines considering the licensing/key questions?

    Read the article

  • Cloning Windows 2003 Server to new hard drive results in failure

    - by Level1Coder
    Scenario: Old hdd is a Seagate 320gb SATA drive New hdd is a WD 320gb SATA drive Created an exact clone and replaced old hdd with new hdd. Boot up with new hdd, it gets into Windows 2003 server environment but things look weird. Lots of system event failures in the event viewer log. System is barely unusable, critical services are all down. Boot up with old hdd, everything is fine. QUESTION: Is it possible to do a simple clone of a Windows 2003 server system? All I'm changing is the hard drive, everything else stays the same (old CPU/old mobo/etc..)

    Read the article

  • Is it possible in Java to implement something similar to Object.clone() ?

    - by devoured elysium
    The Object.clone() method in Java is pretty special, as instead of returning a copy of the object that is to be cloned with the Object type, it returns the correct Object type. This can be better described with the following code: class A extends Object { public A clone() { return super.clone(); //although Object.clone() is from the Object class //this super.clone() will return an A object! } } class B extends A { } public static void main(String[] args) { B = new B(); B.clone();//here, although we haven't defined a clone() method, the cloned //object return is of type B! } So, could anyone explain if possible if is there anyway to replicate what happens inside Object.clone()'s method?

    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

  • 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

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 | 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66  | Next Page >