Search Results

Search found 3182 results on 128 pages for 'git branching'.

Page 60/128 | < Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >

  • Image 8-connectivity without excessive branching?

    - by shoosh
    I'm writing a low level image processing algorithm which needs to do alot of 8-connectivity checks for pixels. For every pixel I often need to check the pixels above it, below it and on its sides and diagonals. On the edges of the image there are special cases where there are only 5 or 3 neighbors instead of 8 neighbors for a pixels. The naive way to do it is for every access to check if the coordinates are in the right range and if not, return some default value. I'm looking for a way to avoid all these checks since they introduce a large overhead to the algorithm. Are there any tricks to avoid it altogether?

    Read the article

  • PHP - Database schema: version control, branching, migrations.

    - by Billiam
    I'm trying to come up with (or find) a reusable system for database schema versioning in php projects. There are a number of Rails-style migration projects available for php. http://code.google.com/p/mysql-php-migrations/ is a good example. It uses timestamps for migration files, which helps with conflicts between branches. General problem with this kind of system: When development branch A is checked out, and you want to check out branch B instead, B may have new migration files. This is fine, migrating to newer content is straight forward. If branch A has newer migration files, you would need to migrate downwards to the nearest shared patch. If branch A and B have significantly different code bases, you may have to migrate down even further. This may mean: Check out B, determine shared patch number, check out A, migrate downwards to this patch. This must be done from A since the actual applied patches are not available in B. Then, checkout branch B, and migrate to newest B patch. Reverse process again when going from B to A. Proposed system: When migrating upwards, instead of just storing the patch version, serialize the whole patch in database for later use, though I'd probably only need the down() method. When changing branches, compare patches that have been run to patches that are available in the destination branch. Determine nearest shared patch (or oldest difference, maybe) between db table of run patches and patches in destination branch by ID or hash. Could also look for new or missing patches that are buried under a number of shared patches between the two branches. Automatically merge down to the nearest shared patch, using the db table stored down() methods, and then merge up to the branche's latest patch. My question is: Is this system too crazy and/or fraught with consequences to bother developing? My experience with database schema versioning is limited to PHP autopatch, which is an up()-only system requiring filenames with sequential IDs.

    Read the article

  • Tarballing without git metadata

    - by zaf
    My source tree contains several directories which are using git source control and I need to tarball the whole tree excluding any references to the git metadata or custom log files. I thought I'd have a go using a combo of find/egrep/xargs/tar but somehow the tar file contains the .git directories and the *.log files. This is what I have: find -type f . | egrep -v '\.git|\.log' | xargs tar rvf ~/app.tar Can someone explain my misunderstanding here? Why is tar processing the files that find and egrep are filtering? I'm open to other techniques as well.

    Read the article

  • Mercurial local branching and pushing to shared repository

    - by Steve Horn
    I created a branch on my local Mercurial repository. I want to push to the shared repository so my work can be backed up, but I don't want other project members to see the branch. What's the standard operating procedure in this case? I'd like to avoid having the repository get full of developer branches that I don't need to see.

    Read the article

  • Optimize conditional operators branching in C#

    - by abatishchev
    Hello. I have next code: return this.AllowChooseAny.Value ? radioSpecific.Checked ? UserManager.CurrentUser.IsClient ? txtSubject.Text : subjectDropDownList.SelectedItem.Text : String.Empty : UserManager.CurrentUser.IsClient ? txtSubject.Text : subjectDropDownList.SelectedItem.Text; or in less complex form: return any ? specified ? isClient ? textbox : dropdown : empty : isClient ? textbox : dropdown; or in schematic form: | any / \ specified isClient / \ / \ isClient empty textbox dropdown / \ textbox dropdown Evidently I have a duplicated block on two different levels. Is it possible to optimize this code to probably split them to one? Or something like that..

    Read the article

  • Cheap cloning/local branching in Mercurial

    - by Zack
    Hi, Just started working with Mercurial a few days ago and there's something I don't understand. I have an experimental thing I want to do, so the normal thing to do would be to clone my repository, work on the clone and if eventually I want to keep those changes, I'll push them to my main repository. Problem is cloning my repository takes alot of time (we have alot of code) and just compiling the cloned copy would take up to an hour. So I need to somehow work on a different repository but still in my original working copy. Enter local branches. Problem is just creating a local branch takes forever, and working with them isn't all that fun either. Because when moving between local branches doesn't "revert" to the target branch state, I have to issue a hg purge (to remove files that were added in the moved from branch) and then hg update -c (to revert modified files in the moved from branch). (note: I did try PK11 fork of local branch extension, it a simple local branch creation crashes with an exception) At the end of the day, this is just too complex. What are my options?

    Read the article

  • Branching logic in an MVC view

    - by Alex Kilpatrick
    I find myself writing a lot of code in my views that looks like the code below. In this case, I want to add some explanatory HTML for a novice, and different HTML for an expert user. <% if (ViewData["novice"] != null ) { % some extra HTML for a novice <% } else { % some HTML for an expert <% } % This is presentation logic, so it makes sense that it is in a view vs the controller. However, it gets ugly really fast, especially when ReSharper wants to move all the braces around to make it even uglier (is there a way to turn that off for views?). My question is whether this is proper, or should I branch in the controller to two separate views? If I do two views, I will have a lot of duplicated HTML to maintain. Or should I do two separate views with a shared partial view of the stuff that is in common?

    Read the article

  • Branching and remote heads in Mercurial

    - by hekevintran
    I created a new branch using this command: hg branch new_branch After the first commit to the new branch, the default branch becomes inactive. If this is pushed the central repository will have only one head which belongs to the new branch. When my colleague pushes his commits on the default branch, he will get this error: pushing to ssh://... searching for changes abort: push creates new remote heads! (did you forget to merge? use push -f to force) Is there anything bad about forcing the push? Why are remote heads bad? How do you work remotely on separate branches and push to one repository?

    Read the article

  • Rejoin branching using jQuery formwizard?

    - by Vinay
    jQuery formwizard (http://thecodemine.org/) allows you to branch a form wizard based on inputs. I am trying to figure out if it possible to rejoin the branches (and not just for the last step.) e.g. Based on the inputs to Step 1, I'd like to present the user with a different step 2. However, after step 2, the remaining steps (step 3, 4, 5, etc.) should all be the same. How can this be done? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Mercurial and particular files branching

    - by zerkms
    The context: i have a project, that contains configs/ directory, which contains (surprise-surprise!) a set of config files: database.php, facebook.php, twitter.php, cache.php, etc What I did in svn: I have created branches per specific file and made changes there (changed database connections, facebook API keys, etc). So they were stored in my private branch. Now I'm trying to migrate to "modern" nowadays DSCM - Mercurial. And I cannot get any possibility of doing the same. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Conditional Branching Issues

    - by Zack
    Here is the code: def main_menu print_main_menu user_selected = gets.chomp if user_selected.downcase == "no" main_menu elsif user_selected == "1" || "2" || "3" || "4" || "5" || "6" || "7" user_selected = user_selected.to_i call_option(user_selected) else main_menu end end This code uses calls to allow a user to make a selection from a main menu. Depending on the input, be it a certain number, a certain word, or something else, the respective method is called (in the case of a valid input) or the main menu is printed again (in the case of an invalid input or "no"). My questions are twofold. 1) Is there an efficient way to get rid of the literal string error that appears as a result of this redundant or statement on the elsif line? (the code itself works fine, but this error appears and is frustrating). 2) When an alternate/unspecified input is made by the user, the else branch doesn't execute and main_method doesn't start over. I have no idea why this is happening. Is there something I'm missing here? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How do I set up pairing email addresses?

    - by James A. Rosen
    Our team uses the Ruby gem hitch to manage pairing. You set it up with a group email address (e.g. [email protected]) and then tell it who is pairing: $ hitch james tiffany Hitch then sets your Git author configuration so that our commits look like commit 629dbd4739eaa91a720dd432c7a8e6e1a511cb2d Author: James and Tiffany <[email protected]> Date: Thu Oct 31 13:59:05 2013 -0700 Unfortunately, we've only been able to come up with two options: [email protected] doesn't exist. The downside is that if Travis CI tries to notify us that we broke the build, we don't see it. [email protected] does exist and forwards to all the developers. Now the downside is that everyone gets spammed with every broken build by every pair. We have too many possible pair to do any of the following: set up actual [email protected] email addresses or groups (n^2 email addresses) set up forwarding rules for [email protected] (n^2 forwarding rules) set up forwarding rules for [email protected] (n forwarding rules for each of n developers) Does anyone have a system that works for them?

    Read the article

  • Best way to convert existing project to be open source in GitHub

    - by Tom
    I've been working on a personal closed source project for some time and would like to make it open source. I've never created my own open source project before so it will be a good learning experience. I have been using GitHub as source control, so once I've written some decent docs on how to use and develop for it etc, it should be as simple as switching the repo to be public right? I guess my main question is around licencing. I was thinking of going with Apache 2.0 licence just because it seems to be widely used. It requires the licence header to be attached to all the source files, but if I do that now then all the other commits in the past will have it missing. Does that mean some one could pull an earlier version and it wouldn't have a licence? Is it best to start a new repo with the initial commit containing all the code with licence headers? Or maybe is there some advanced Git functionality that allows me to apply the licence header to all existing commits some how? Cheers.

    Read the article

  • Collaboration using github and testing the code

    - by wyred
    The procedure in my team is that we all commit our code to the same development branch. We have a test server that runs updated code from this branch so that we can test our code on the servers. The problem is that if we want to merge the development branch to the master branch in order to publish new features to our production servers, some features that may not have been ready will be applied to the production servers. So we're considering having each developer work on a feature/topic branch where each of them work on their own features and when it's ready, merge it into the development branch for testing, and then into the master branch. However, because our test server only pulls changes from the development branch, the developers are unable to test their features. While this is not a huge issue as they can test it on their local machine, the only problem I foresee is if we want to test callbacks from third-party services like sendgrid (where you specify a url for sendgrid to update you on the status of emails sent out). How to handle this problem? Note: We're not advanced git users. We use the Github app for MacOSX and Windows to commit our work.

    Read the article

  • Versioning millions of files with distributed SCM

    - by C. Lawrence Wenham
    I'm looking into the feasibility of using off-the-shelf distributed SCMs such as Git or Mercurial to manage millions of XML files. Each file would be a commercial transaction, such as a purchase order, that would be updated perhaps 10 times during the lifecycle of the transaction until it is "done" and changes no more. And by "manage", I mean that the SCM would be used to not just version the files, but also to replicate them to other machines for redundancy and transfer of IP. Lets suppose, for the sake of example, that a goal is to provide good performance if it was handling the volume of orders that Amazon.com claimed to have at its peak in December 2010: about 150,000 orders per minute. We're expecting the system to be distributed over many servers in order to get reasonable performance. We're also planning to use solid-state drives exclusively. There is a reason why we don't want to use an RDBMS for primary storage, but it's a bit beyond the scope of this question. Does anyone have first-hand experience with the performance of distributed SCMs under such a load, and what strategies were used? Open-source preferred, since the final product is to be FOSS, too.

    Read the article

  • We're Subversion Geeks and we want to know the benefits of Mercurial

    - by Matt
    Having read I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS. I have a related follow up question. I read that question and read the recommended links and videos and I see the benefits but I don't see the overall mindshift people are talking about. Our team is of 8-10 developers that work on one large code base consisting of 60 projects. We use Subversion and have a main trunk. When a developer starts a new Fogbugz case they create a svn branch, do the work on the branch and when they're done they merge back to the trunk. Occasionally they may stay on the branch for an extended time and merge the trunk to the branch to pick up the changes. When I watched Linus talk about people creating a branch and never doing it again, that's not us at all. We create probably 50-100 branches a week without issue. The biggest challenge is the merging but we've gotten pretty good at that as well. I tend to merge by fogbugz case & checkin rather than the entire root of the branch. We never work remotely and we never make branches off of branches. If you're the only one working in that section of the code base then the merge to the trunk goes smoothly. If someone else had modified the same section of code then the merge can get messy and you might need to do some surgery. Conflicts are conflicts, I don't see how any system could get it right most of the time unless if was smart enough to understand the code. After creating a branch the following checkout of 60k+ files takes some time but that would be an issue with any source control system we'd use. Is there some benefit of any DVCS that we're not seeing that would be of great help to us?

    Read the article

  • github team workflow - to fork or not?

    - by aporat
    We're a small team of web developers currently using subversion but soon we're making a switch to github. I'm looking at different types of github workflows, and we're not sure if the whole forking concept in github for each developer is such a good idea for us. If we use forks, I understand each developer will have his own private remote & local repositories. I'm worried it will make pushing changesets hard and too complex. Also, my biggest concern is that it will force each developer to have 2 remotes: origin (which is the remote fork) and an upstream (which is used to "sync" changes from the main repository). Not sure if it's such a easy way to do things. This is similar to the workflow explained here: https://github.com/usm-data-analysis/usm-data-analysis.github.com/wiki/Git-workflow If we don't use forks, we can probably get by fine by using a central repo creating a branch for each task we're working on, and merge them into the development branch on the same repository. It means we won't be able to restrict merging of branches and might be a little messy to have many branches on the central repository. Any suggestions from teams who tried both workflow?

    Read the article

  • Pulling in changes from a forked repo without a request on GitHub?

    - by Alec
    I'm new to the social coding community and don't know how to proceed properly in this situation: I've created a GitHub Repository a couple weeks ago. Someone forked the project and has made some small changes that have been on my to-do. I'm thrilled someone forked my project and took the time to add to it. I'd like to pull the changes into my own code, but have a couple of concerns. 1) I don't know how to pull in the changes via git from a forked repo. My understanding is that there is an easy way to merge the changes via a pull request, but it appears as though the forker has to issue that request? 2) Is it acceptable to pull in changes without a pull request? This relates to the first one. I'd put the code aside for a couple of weeks and come back to find that what I was going to work on next was done by someone else, and don't want to just copy their code without giving them credit in some way. Shouldn't there be a to pull the changes in even if they don't explicitly ask you to? What's the etiquette here I may be over thinking this, but thanks for your input in advance. I'm pretty new to the hacker community, but I want to do what I can to contribute!

    Read the article

  • Why not commit unresolved changes?

    - by Explosion Pills
    In a traditional VCS, I can understand why you would not commit unresolved files because you could break the build. However, I don't understand why you shouldn't commit unresolved files in a DVCS (some of them will actually prevent you from committing the files). Instead, I think that your repository should be locked from pushing and pulling, but not committing. Being able to commit during the merging process has several advantages (as I see it): The actual merge changes are in history. If the merge was very large, you could make periodic commits. If you made a mistake, it would be much easier to roll back (without having to redo the entire merge). The files could remain flagged as unresolved until they were marked as resolved. This would prevent pushing/pulling. You could also potentially have a set of changesets act as the merge instead of just a single one. This would allow you to still use tools such as git rerere. So why is committing with unresolved files frowned upon/prevented? Is there any reason other than tradition?

    Read the article

  • Is version history really sacred or is it better to rebase?

    - by dukeofgaming
    I've always agreed with Mercurial's mantra, however, now that Mercurial comes bundled with the rebase extension and it is a popular practice in git, I'm wondering if it could really be regarded as a "bad practice", or at least bad enough to avoid using. In any case, I'm aware of rebasing being dangerous after pushing. OTOH, I see the point of trying to package 5 commits in a single one to make it look niftier (specially at in a production branch), however, personally I think would be better to be able to see partial commits to a feature where some experimentation is done, even if it is not as nifty, but seeing something like "Tried to do it way X but it is not as optimal as Y after all, doing it Z taking Y as base" would IMHO have good value to those studying the codebase and follow the developers train of thought. My very opinionated (as in dumb, visceral, biased) point of view is that programmers like rebase to hide mistakes... and I don't think this is good for the project at all. So my question is: have you really found valuable to have such "organic commits" (i.e. untampered history) in practice?, or conversely, do you prefer to run into nifty well-packed commits and disregard the programmers' experimentation process?; whichever one you chose, why does that work for you? (having other team members to keep history, or alternatively, rebasing it).

    Read the article

  • github team workflow - to fork or not?

    - by aporat
    We're a small team of web developers currently using subversion but soon we're making a switch to github. I'm looking at different types of github workflows, and we're not sure if the whole forking concept in github for each developer is such a good idea for us. If we use forks, I understand each developer will have his own private remote & local repositories. I'm worried it will make pushing changesets hard and too complex. Also, my biggest concern is that it will force each developer to have 2 remotes: origin (which is the remote fork) and an upstream (which is used to "sync" changes from the main repository). Not sure if it's such a easy way to do things. This is similar to the workflow explained here: https://github.com/usm-data-analysis/usm-data-analysis.github.com/wiki/Git-workflow If we don't use forks, we can probably get by fine by using a central repo creating a branch for each task we're working on, and merge them into the development branch on the same repository. It means we won't be able to restrict merging of branches and might be a little messy to have many branches on the central repository. Any suggestions from teams who tried both workflow?

    Read the article

  • What is the canonical approach to using a VCS right from a project's infancy?

    - by Anonymous -
    Background I've used VCS (mainly git) in the past to manage many existing projects and it works great. Typically with an existing project, I would check in each change I make to the code that either optimizes or changes the overall functionality (you know what I mean, in suitable steps, not every single line I change). Problem One thing I've not had so much practise at is creating new projects. I'm in the process of starting a new project of my own that will probably grow quite large, but I'm finding that there is a lot to do and a lot changing in the first few days/hours/weeks/the period up until the product is actually functioning in it's most basic form. Is there any point in me checking in each step of the process as I would with an existing project? I'm not breaking the project with changes I make since it isn't working yet. At the moment I've simply been using VCS as a backup at the end of each day, when I leave the computer. My first few commits were things like "Basic directory structure in place" and "DB tables created". How should I use a VCS when starting a new project?

    Read the article

  • Coping with build order requirements in automated builds

    - by Derecho
    I have three Scala packages being built as separate sbt projects in separate repos with a dependency graph like this: M---->D ^ ^ | | +--+--+ ^ | S S is a service. M is a set of message classes shared between S and another service. D is a DAL used by S and the other service, and some of its model appears in the shared messages. If I make a breaking change to all three, and push them up to my Git repo, a build of S will be kicked off in Jenkins. The build will only be successful if, when S is pushed, M and D have already been pushed. Otherwise, Jenkins will find it doesn't have the right dependent package versions available. Even pushing them simultaneously wouldn't be enough -- the dependencies would have to be built and published before the dependent job was even started. Making the jobs dependent in Jenkins isn't enough, because that would just cause the previous version to be built, resulting in an artifact that doesn't have the needed version. Is there a way to set things up so that I don't have to remember to push things in the right order? The only way I can see it working is if there was a way that a build could go into a pending state if its dependencies weren't available yet. I feel like there's a simple solution I'm missing. Surely people deal with this a lot?

    Read the article

  • Gitosis-init returns "Fatal Python error: <stdin> is a directory", why is this?

    - by Jasper Kennis
    I'm trying to get gitosis installed because I want to use Indefero and I need a deamon for the git:// protocol. However, following the instructions in the Git Pro book (http://progit.org/book/ch4-7.html) I run into trouble pretty soon. This is what happens: [x@x gitosis]# sudo -H -u git gitosis-init < /tmp/id_dsa.pub Fatal Python error: <stdin> is a directory Aborted The error is really vague to me and I didn't find anything helpful around, except that I think stdin is somehow part of C, which confuses me even more since the error is Python. I really don't understand what's going on, or where to look for clues, so I hope someone can tell me where to look next for more info on the problem. Tnx.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >