Search Results

Search found 4953 results on 199 pages for 'git commit'.

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 66/199 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

  • Picking a code review tool

    - by marcog
    We are a startup looking to migrate from Fogbugz/Kiln to a new issue tracker/code review system. We are very happy with Jira, especially the configurability, but we are undecided on a code review tool. We have been trialing Bitbucket, but it doesn't fit our workflow well. Here are the problems we have identified with BB: Comments can be hard to find: when commenting on code not visible in the diff when code that is commented on is later changed viewing the full file doesn't include comments (also doesn't show changes) Viewing comments on individual commits can be a pain We have the implementer merge the diff and close the issue, whereas pull requests are more suited to the open source model where someone with commit rights merges We would like to automate creation of the code review (either from Jira or a command line tool) No syntax highlighting Once the pull request exceeds a certain size, BB won't show the whole thing and you have to view individual commits Linking BB pull requests to Jira issues is a bit janky: we have a pull request URL field on Jira, but this doesn't work when there are changes in multiple repositories Does anyone have any good suggestion given the above? We are tight on budget, and Jira integration is a big plus. We also have multiple commits per issue, and would like to have the option of viewing individual commits in the review. It might also be worth noting that we have a separate reviewer and tester for each issue.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • GitHub updating repository?

    - by user1804933
    I am trying to setup GitHub on my server and gotten to the point where I am running the command "git push -u origin master". However, a large file was detected and the following error was received: remote: error: GH001: Large files detected. remote: error: Trace: 5520a70fd2eeaa2eafd7de049a590fb5 remote: error: See http://git.io/iEPt8g for more information. remote: error: File app/logs/dev.log is 2041.59 MB; this exceeds GitHub's file size limit of 100 MB I ended up deleting that file and tried adding the git again but I keep running into that error. Any ideas on how to work around this?

    Read the article

  • Completely remove Postgres on Mac OSX Lion

    - by Nai
    I'm trying to get postgis running on my machine. Running brew install postgis seems to have installed postgres 9.2.1 on to my machine. I would like to remove my previous version 9.1.2 to keep my environment clean. Running brew uninstall postgres removes 9.2.1. What's the best way to do this? UPDATE nai@nyc ~ $ brew versions postgresql 9.2.1 git checkout ed92469 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.2.0 git checkout 2f6cbc6 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.1.5 git checkout 6b8d25f /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.1.4 git checkout c40c7bf /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.1.3 git checkout 05c7954 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.1.2 git checkout dfcc838 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.1.1 git checkout 4ef8fb0 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.0.4 git checkout 2accac4 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.0.3 git checkout b782d9d /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.0.2 git checkout 2c3b88a /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.0.1 git checkout b7fab6c /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 9.0.0 git checkout 1168d8f /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 8.4.4 git checkout c32bea0 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb 8.4.3 git checkout 237d1c5 /usr/local/Library/Formula/postgresql.rb

    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 | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >