Search Results

Search found 5413 results on 217 pages for 'git pull'.

Page 61/217 | < Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 | Next Page >

Using report viewer, how do I pull from two seperate Datasets

- by Robert

I have two datasets I need to pull from, A base that both reports use and then a separate one that only one report pulls from. I get the error Error 12 The Value expression for the text box ‘Textbox9’ refers to the field ‘Name’. Report item expressions can only refer to fields within the current dataset scope or, if inside an aggregate, the specified dataset scope. My best guess is I have to associate them with the correct dataset but I have not been able to find any documentation on this. Can someone please tell me where in the rdlc document I need to code something like name.value, "dataset1" or something similar?

Read the article
Pull DIV from separate page and update DIV in current page

- by brhea

Hi everyone, I've got a simple one but haven't been able to find an example of a solution that fits exactly what I'm asking. Sorry in advance if this is a repeat. From my navigation menu, I want each link to reference a specific DIV in a separate page and then pull that DIV and replace the content in the current page. <ul> <li><a href="#">About</a></li> <li><a href="#">Contact</a></li> ..and so on </ul> Elsewhere in the page: <div id="displayContent">Content refreshes onClick. Previous content fades out, fresh content fades in.</div> Separate page (content.php): <div id="about">About content</div> <div id="contact">Contact content</div>

Read the article
If-statement: how to pull 2nd GET variable

- by arsoneffect

How do I get this to pull my 2nd variable? (I already have a switch setup) <body id="<?php if (! isset($_GET['page'])) { echo "home"; } else { $_GET['page']; echo $page; } ?>"> I have a switch statement that pulls the pages from index.php?page=##### and I have just added this part to my switch: index.php?page=####&section=##### Right now, if I am on page=photos, my code ends up being: <body id="photos"> I need to make it so that if any link has the "sections" variable on it like this page=photos&section=cars it uses the same ID: <body id="photos">

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
Big project layout : adding new feature on multiple sub-projects

- by Shiplu

I want to know how to manage a big project with many components with version control management system. In my current project there are 4 major parts. Web Server Admin console Platform. The web and server part uses 2 libraries that I wrote. In total there are 5 git repositories and 1 mercurial repository. The project build script is in Platform repository. It automates the whole building process. The problem is when I add a new feature that affects multiple components I have to create branch for each of the affected repo. Implement the feature. Merge it back. My gut feeling is "something is wrong". So should I create a single repo and put all the components there? I think branching will be easier in that case. Or I just do what I am doing right now. In that case how do I solve this problem of creating branch on each repository?

Read the article
Branching strategy for frequent releases

- by Technext

We have very frequent releases and we use Git for version control. When i am mentioning about frequency, please assume it to include bug-fixes and feature release too. All releases are eventually merged into ‘mainline’. When a release is deployed on production and if a bug is identified, people start fixing the bug on the same branch from which the latest release was deployed on production. They do not create a new bug-fix branch for the same. I feel that’s not the right way to go for. There are several components and each component has a different owner, and thus, different perspective. Though I have not initiated talks with them, I am sure there will be a lot of resistance. Main issue that they might cite would be, “There’s a lot of work involved in creating and tracking branches especially when there are so frequent deployments on production. This will consume a lot of dev effort.” Do you think that fixing bug on the same branch from which release was done, a good idea? If yes, how do you manage it? Using tags? I know that best practices may not always be applicable due to several factors but still I would like to know what might be a good approach for branching in a scenario where releases/bug-fixes happen almost on a daily basis.

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
Can DVCSs enforce a specific workflow?

- by dukeofgaming

So, I have this little debate at work where some of my colleagues (which are actually in charge of administrating our Perforce instance) say that workflows are strictly a process thing, and that the tools that we use (in this case, the version control system) have no take on it. In otherwords, the point that they make is that workflows (and their execution) are tool-agnostic. My take on this is that DVCSs are better at encouraging people in more flexible and well-defined ways, because of the inherent branching occurring in the background (anonymous branches), and that you can enforce workflows through the deployment model you establish (e.g. pull requests through repository management, dictator/liutenant roles with their machines setup as servers, etc.) I think in CVCSs you have to enforce workflows through policies and policing, because there is only one way to share the code, while in DVCSs you just go with the flow based on the infrastructure/permissions that were setup for you. Even when I have provided the earlier arguments, I'm still unable to fully convince them. Am I saying something the wrong way?, if not, what other arguments or examples do you think would be useful to convince them? Edit: The main workflow we have been focusing on, because it makes sense to both sides is the Dictator/Lieutenants workflow: My argument for this particular workflow is that there is no pipeline in a CVCS (because there is just sharing work in a centralized way), whereas there is an actual pipeline in DVCSs depending on how you deploy read/write permissions. Their argument is that this workflow can be done through branching, and while they do this in some projects (due to policy/policing) in other projects they forbid developers from creating branches.

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
Unable to connect to Github for the first time

- by MaxMackie

This is my first time with Git and I'm trying to set it up on my box. I added my key to my profile in the Github web interface. When I try to connect... : max@linux-vwzy:~> ssh [email protected] The authenticity of host 'github.com (207.97.227.239)' can't be established. RSA key fingerprint is xx Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)? yes Warning: Permanently added 'github.com,207.97.227.239' (RSA) to the list of known hosts. PTY allocation request failed on channel 0 max@linux-vwzy:~> ssh-add ~/.ssh/id_rsa Identity added: /home/max/.ssh/id_rsa (/home/max/.ssh/id_rsa) max@linux-vwzy:~> ssh [email protected] PTY allocation request failed on channel 0 I'm supposed to be getting some kind of welcome message however, I'm not.

Read the article
Add linux user with restricted access

- by Dominik Str

I need to create a user on linux with access rights only to one folder. Background: I have installed git on my virtual server (Debian). I also created a user for the repository. There is a lot of private data on the server. But all folders have read-access for others, because it's needed for the applications which run on the server. So the git-user can see all the data. I would like to restrict the git user only to the folder where the repository is installed. I also tried ACL, but it didn't work. Is there a better way to do this? Thanks in advance!

Read the article
Cygwin won't start Gitk

- by starcorn

Hey I have followed this answer to solve problem with running GUI applications under Cygwin. So far it seems okay, but when I try to open gitk it will complain on that it cannot find any git repository here. I am standing in the correct folder though, and running git from console it works (I can push, pull, and so on) But gitk won't start as it say it is not any git repository here. Anyone know how to fix it? I type the following to the console. gitk And the output I get is: 0 [main] wish8.5 2260 child_info_fork::abort: C:\cygwin\bin\libtcl8.5.dll: Loaded to different address: parent(0x520000) != child(0x410000) 0 [main] wish8.5 4332 child_info_fork::abort: C:\cygwin\bin\libtcl8.5.dll: Loaded to different address: parent(0x520000) != child(0x560000) 0 [main] wish8.5 4716 child_info_fork::abort: C:\cygwin\bin\libtcl8.5.dll: Loaded to different address: parent(0x520000) != child(0x410000) 0 [main] wish8.5 4724 child_info_fork::abort: C:\cygwin\bin\libtcl8.5.dll: Loaded to different address: parent(0x520000) != child(0x410000)

Read the article
Correct password for ssh key rejected when ssh-d into machine

- by user20342

When I am logged into my machine directly, I can do all git operations, and when prompted for a password, the password is accepted. When I ssh into the same box and run git operations on the same repos, the password is rejected. Relevant section of .ssh/config looks like this: # Generic settings Host * ServerAliveInterval 600 ControlPath /tmp/ssh-%r@%h:%p ControlMaster auto KeepAlive yes IdentityFile ~/.ssh/id_rsa.pub Transaction looks like this when I login when I ssh into my box: {12-12-03 9:41}hbrown-wks2:~/workspace/spt/project@master??? hbrown% git pull Enter passphrase for key '/home/hbrown/.ssh/id_rsa.pub': Enter passphrase for key '/home/hbrown/.ssh/id_rsa.pub': Enter passphrase for key '/home/hbrown/.ssh/id_rsa.pub': Permission denied (publickey). fatal: Could not read from remote repository. Please make sure you have the correct access rights and the repository exists. Using bash does not appear to make a difference (i.e. ssh-agent /bin/bash). This is a recent development, but I can't cite the change that caused it.

Read the article
Updating a script currently being ran by Task Scheduler on Windows

- by orangechicken

I have a scheduled task that runs a script on a ahem schedule ahem that updates a local git repo. This script is a file in this local git repo. Currently, what I'm seeing is that the script is ran, git complains that permissions are denied to write to file which actually results in the script being deleted! The next time the scheduled task runs the script file is now missing! How can I ensure that when I pull changes to this script from the repo that the file is actually updated?

Read the article
Is there a purpose for using pull requests on my own repo if I am the only developper?

- by marco-fiset

So I got started with a real project of mine on GitHub and things are going pretty well and ideas are flowing a lot faster than I initially thought. In order to keep things organized, I setup some branches so I can develop different features separatly. Now when I push my branch to GitHub, I have that section where I have two buttons : Pull Request and Compare with the name of the branch I recently pushed to. I understand the purpose of the Compare button but I don't get why I would want to create a pull request on my own repo. Can someone explain me why I would do that? Is it useful to make pull request on my own repo if I am the only developper?

Read the article
Continuous Deployment to Azure powered by Git

Today Scott Guthrie announced several updated capabilities for Azure Web Sites. Announcing: Great Improvements to Windows Azure Web Sites I recommend you checkout the full post there are some really cool improvements. My favorite is the ability to enable Continuous Deployment from your CodePlex project into Azure. David Ebbo has a great video walk-through: (Please visit the site to view this video)

Read the article

< Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 | Next Page >