Search Results

Search found 29863 results on 1195 pages for 'version'.

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 77/1195 | < Previous Page | 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84  | Next Page >

  • Subversion: Ignore a Directory in the Repo on Commit

    - by Charles
    I have all the boost header files in this repository and when I do a check in it takes a really long time to scan all those files that will never change. Because I want users that checkout the project to be able to compile without installing boost I am in a pickle. I want to checkout everything, and then ignore updates (there will never be any) on a directory. Tortoise svn has a ignore-on-commit change list, but I cannot find anyway to add an entire directory to this list, and I do not fancy the idea of 'modifying' all the boost files so I can add them to this change list. Is there a simple solution?

    Read the article

  • Pushing from an existing git repo to a new SVN repo

    - by Drew Noakes
    All examples I've found on git-svn detail how to use git to mirror an existing SVN repo, work on it, then commit your changes back. I have a pure git repo, created via git init not git-svn init and want to commit it to a new SVN service (Google Code, to be specific). Is this something that can be done?

    Read the article

  • Installing Team Foundation Server

    - by vzczc
    What are the best practices in setting up a new instance of TFS 2008 Workgroup edition? Specifically, the constraints are as follows: Must install on an existing Windows Server 2008 64 bit TFS application layer is 32 bit only Should I install SQL Server 2008, Sharepoint and the app layer in a virtual instance of Windows Server 2008 or 2003(I am already running Hyper-V) or split the layers with a database on the host OS and the app layer in a virtual machine? Edit: Apparently, splitting the layers is not recommended

    Read the article

  • Advantages of three-way automatic merging vs. two-way

    - by bnsmith
    I'm interested in understanding two-way and three-way merging of source code files. Based on what I've read, two-way merging has some "crippling weaknesses" compared to three-way merging. What I'd really like to see are one or two simple, concrete examples of cases where three-way merging is able to automatically merge something from a branch to the trunk without producing conflicts, while two-way merging falls down and requires a bunch of manual intervention to get the code merged. Any links to blog posts or even references to books would be appreciated (yes, I have Googled this for an hour or so). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to Make a DVCS Completely Interoperable with Subversion?

    - by David M
    What architectural changes would a DVCS need to be completely interoperable with Subversion? Many DVCSs have some kind of bidirectional interface with Subversion, but there are limitations and caveats. For instance, git-svn can create a repository that mirrors Subversion, and changes to that repo can be sent back to Subversion via 'dcommit'. But the git-svn manpage explicitly cautions against making clones of that repository, so essentially, it's a Subversion working copy that you can use git commands on. Bazaar has a bidirectional Subversion capability too, but its documentation notes that Subversion properties aren't supported at all. Here's the end that I'm pursuing. I want a Subversion repository and a DVCS repository that, in the steady state, have identical content. When something is changed on one, it's automatically mirrored to the other. Subversion users interact with the Subversion repository normally. DVCS users clone the DVCS repository, pull changes from it, and push changes back to it. Most importantly, they don't need to know that this special DVCS repository is associated with a Subversion repository. It would probably be nifty if any clone of the special repository is itself a special repository and could commit directly to Subversion, but it might be sufficient if only the special repository directly interacts with Subversion. I think that's what mostly needed is to improve the bidirectional capability so that changes to Subversion properties are translated to changes in the DVCS repository. Some changes in the DVCS repository would be translated to changes to Subversion properties. Or is the answer to create a new capability in Subversion that interacts with a DVCS repository, using the DVCS repository as just a special storage layer such as fsfs or bdb? If there's not a direct mapping between the things that Subversion and a DVCS regard as having versions, does that imply that there's always going to be some activity that cannot be recorded properly on one or the other?

    Read the article

  • How do I protect the trunk from hapless newbies?

    - by Michael Haren
    A coworker relayed the following problem, let's say it's fictional to protect the guilty: A team of 5-10 works on a project which is issue-driven. That is, the typical flow goes like this: a chunk of work (bug, enhancement, etc.) is created as an issue in the issue tracker The issue is assigned to a developer The developer resolves the issue and commits their code changes to the trunk At release time, the frozen, and heavily tested trunk or release branch or whatever is built in release mode and released The problem he's having is that a couple newbies made several bad commits that weren't caught due to an unfortunate chain of events. This was followed by a bad release with a rollback or flurry of hot fixes. One idea we're toying with: Revoke commit access to the trunk for newbies and make them develop on a per-developer branch (we're using SVN): Good: newbies are isolated and can't hurt others Good: committers merge newbie branches with the trunk frequently Good: this enforces rigid code reviews Bad: this is burdensome on the committers (but there's probably no way around it since the code needs reviewed!) Bad: it might make traceability of trunk changes a little tougher since the reviewer would be doing the commit--not too sure on this. Update: Thank you, everyone, for your valuable input. I have concluded that this is far less a code/coder problem than I first presented. The root of the issue is that the release procedure failed to capture and test some poor quality changes to the trunk. Plugging that hole is most important. Relying on the false assumption that code in the trunk is "good" is not the solution. Once that hole--testing--is plugged, mistakes by everyone--newbie or senior--will be caught properly and dealt with accordingly. Next, a greater emphasis on code reviews and mentorship (probably driven by some systematic changes to encourage it) will go a long way toward improving code quality. With those two fixes in place, I don't think something as rigid or draconian as what I proposed above is necessary. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Mercurial between server and local?

    - by artmania
    I have a portal development work in process... I had some troubles time to time like losing, overwriting wrong files, etc... So I decided to go for Mercurial for this development. My first experience with Source Control. I work on server [bluehost] for this project, is there any way to keep update backups at local? Do I have to setup Mercurial to Bluehost? any way to sync changes on server to my local mac?

    Read the article

  • Does Github.com have to create a merge commit when you merge from a fork ?

    - by Nishant
    I cloned the master and started doing he my work . Due to permissions I push the branch to my fork . I then sent a pull request to my master and someone with permission does the merge . I notice that Github.com creates a merge commit snapshot which to me looks like just a diff of the entire changes which is actually not necessary but helpful in the sense I can just look at merge commit to see the entire diff . I can see the same sha has as my own branch - hence it looks like the merge is an extra commit which probably aint nexeccary since its a fast forward ? master - a myfork(computer) - a->b->c myfork(github) - a->b->c Pull request myfork - master (which it says I can automatically merge) shows the entire diff and then when I merge it , it shows up as master - a->b->c-d . The d is a merge commit which I think it not really required because it is a fast forward ? Can someone explain why does this happen ? I think this is the same scenario if I rebase master if master had gone ahead , but that has not happened . Master is still at when I merge .

    Read the article

  • Managing large binary files with git

    - by pi
    Hi there. I am looking for opinions of how to handle large binary files on which my source code (web application) is dependent. We are currently discussing several alternatives: Copy the binary files by hand. Pro: Not sure. Contra: I am strongly against this, as it increases the likelihood of errors when setting up a new site/migrating the old one. Builds up another hurdle to take. Manage them all with git. Pro: Removes the possibility to 'forget' to copy a important file Contra: Bloats the repository and decreases flexibility to manage the code-base and checkouts/clones/etc will take quite a while. Separate repositories. Pro: Checking out/cloning the source code is fast as ever, and the images are properly archived in their own repository. Contra: Removes the simpleness of having the one and only git repository on the project. Surely introduces some other things I haven't thought about. What are your experiences/thoughts regarding this? Also: Does anybody have experience with multiple git repositories and managing them in one project? Update: The files are images for a program which generates PDFs with those files in it. The files will not change very often(as in years) but are very relevant to a program. The program will not work without the files. Update2: I found a really nice screencast on using git-submodule at GitCasts.

    Read the article

  • Git index resets itself

    - by trobrock
    Every so often when I run git add . to add new files to my repo my git index will reset and think all the files in the repo have been deleted. I run these commands: git status git add . git status git commit -a -m "Commit message" everything looks fine at all those points until I commit and it says every file was deleted, all I have to do it run git add . and commit again to get the files back, but this becomes a pain. And this doesnt happen every time, maybe about 40% of the time. Anyone know why this might happen? I am on Mac OS 10.6.3 with Git 1.6.6

    Read the article

  • Git remove directory

    - by hrickards
    I've got a repository on GitHub (http://github.com/hrickards/PHP-Crypto) for a little project me and a couple of others are working on. My development environment is Aptana Studio, and I use the EGit plugin as Aptana is basically Eclipse underneath. Today the designer sent the HTML and CSS for the website with the images in a folder named img. Previously the images were in a folder called images. Thinking nothing of it and being too lazy to update the CSS and HTML, I simply kept the images in the img directory and commited to Git. However, the GitHub web interface shows both the img and images directories, with the images directory being empty. I've tried deleting the images directory with git rm -r images and git rm images, and even mkdir images; git add images; git rm -r images but whatever I try I get the same result: fatal: pathspec 'images' did not match any files. Has anyone got any advice on how to remove images, or am I misunderstanding Git or something?

    Read the article

  • Branching Strategies

    - by Craig H
    The company I work for is starting to have issues with their current branching model, and I was wondering what different kinds of branching strategies the community has been exposed to? Are there any good ones for different situations? What does your company use? What are the advantages and disadvantages of them?

    Read the article

  • svn track brand new code base

    - by Fire Crow
    I'm at a company, we keep recieviing new codebases from a third party vendor. we'd like to track the changes in subversion. is there a way to replace a branch with the new code and track the changes? currently we just delete all files in the branch, and then add the new files and commit. we'd like to track the files, but I havn't found a tool that will easily deal with all the .svn directories found in subfolders. does anyone know a tool that will replace an svn directory with a new branch and create the respective modify add and delete records as if the code base was organically modified?

    Read the article

  • Examples of how to visualize a versioning system?

    - by Alex Gilbert
    My shop is trying to formalize the release management process for an OSS product we maintain. It's a sort of a web development framework/CMS kind of thing, as in it's a product that other projects are built on top of. This makes clear communication about the versioning system especially critical for developers that are using the tool. I'm hoping to find some examples of how best to graph this system so we can communicate it better internally and with outside developers. I know there are lots of standards and best practices around versioning, so I'm hoping this extends to some sort of visual vocabulary as well. As one example, there is a nifty graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning#Software_Versioning_schemes. Are there any guides out there on how these sorts of things should be designed?

    Read the article

  • Is Git ready to be recommended to my boss?

    - by Mike Weller
    I want to recomment Git to my boss as a new source control system, since we're stuck in the 90s with VSS (ouch), but are the tools and 3rd party support good enough yet? Specifically I'm talking about GUI front-ends similar to TortoiseSVN, decent visual diff/merge support, as well as stuff like email commit notifications and general support from 3rd parties like IDEs and build systems. Even though this will be used by programmers, we really need this kind of stuff in our team. I don't want to leave everyone stuck with a new tool, and even a new source control paradigm (distributed), with nothing but a command-line app and some online tutorials. This would be a step backwards. So what do you think... is Git ready? What decent tools exist for Git and what third party development apps support it? EDIT: My original question was pretty vague so I'm updating it to specifically ask for a list of available tools and 3rd party support for Git. Maybe we can get a community wiki post with a list of stuff. I also do not consider 'use subversion' to be an adequate answer. There are other reasons to use a distributed source control system other than offline editing - private and cheap branches being one of them.

    Read the article

  • For a .Net project, what file extensions should I exclude from source control?

    - by arame3333
    Everytime I start a project I have to think carefully about which files to exclude from source control. Has someone made a list of the criteria so I can look it up from the beginning? I work on my own so I have not got round to it. I appreciate that in the case of a DLL, you would want to include some and exclude others, so it is not just dependent on the file extension. My projects are ASP.Net, although a general discussion of other templates would also be useful.

    Read the article

  • Unable to add Solution to TFS 2010 due to existing (invisible)binding

    - by Refracted Paladin
    I have a smallish utility library I made that I had created in TFS Beta 2 to test out TFS. I now have TFS rc1 installed(and Beta 2 uninstalled) and am trying to add my Solution to TFS. I get an error saying that it is already bound to my old TFS, which was on a different system then this one. Strangely, when I go into Source Control and look at the bindings it says there aren't any. Also, I manually deleted the .vss and .vsc files and it still does it. Ideas? I looked through the numerous other SO topics related to this but unless I missed one none of them are dealing with my issue. Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Can I create an ASP.NET MVC 2 project with multiple areas without referencing each Child in the pare

    - by No Refunds No Returns
    This is a follow-up question to my original query: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1791605/how-can-i-use-multiple-projects-to-separate-a-large-asp-net-mvc-site-into-departm Now that I have this working, is there a way to still have multiple project but not have to reference each child area from the parent project? Ideally I'd like to be able to have multiple, separate and distinct projects that only come together on the production/test machines. I should be able to build and test each "area" separately.

    Read the article

  • What information should a SVN/Versioned file commit comment contain?

    - by RenderIn
    I'm curious what kind of content should be in a versioned file commit comment. Should it describe generally what changed (e.g. "The widget screen was changed to display only active widgets") or should it be more specific (e.g. "A new condition was added to the where clause of the fetchWidget query to retrieve only active widgets by default") How atomic should a single commit be? Just the file containing the updated query in a single commit (e.g. "Updated the widget screen to display only active widgets by default"), or should that and several other changes + interface changes to a screen share the same commit with a more general description like ("Updated the widget screen: A) display only active widgets by default B) added button to toggle showing inactive widgets") I see subversion commit comments being used very differently and was wondering what others have had success with. Some comments are as brief as "updated files", while others are many paragraphs long, and others are formatted in a way that they can be queried and associated with some external system such as JIRA. I used to be extremely descriptive of the reason for the change as well as the specific technical changes. Lately I've been scaling back and just giving a general "This is what I changed on this page" kind of comment.

    Read the article

  • Git tool to remove lines from staging if they consist only of changes in whitespace

    - by Max Howell
    The point in removing trailing whitespace is that if everyone does it always then you end up with a diff that is minimal, ie. it consists only of code changes and not whitespace changes. However when working with other people who do not practice this, removing all trailing whitespace with your editor or a pre-commit hook results in an even worse diff. You are doing the opposite of your intention. So I am asking here if there is a tool that I can run manually before I commit that unstages lines from staging that are only changes in whitespace. Also a bonus would be to change the staged line to have trailing whitespace removed for lines that have code changes. Also a bonus would be to not do this to Markdown files (as trailing space has meaning in Markdown). I am asking here as I fully intend to write this tool if it doesn't already exist.

    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 | 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84  | Next Page >