Search Results

Search found 6909 results on 277 pages for 'filter branch'.

Page 88/277 | < Previous Page | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >

• How to consolidate servers with the not-very-strong infrastructure

  - by Sim

  All, Situation We are in retail industry with about 10 distributors and use Solomon as the standard ERP for all our systems Each distributor has 1 HQ and 5 - 10 branches, each branch has their own server (Windows 2000/XP/2003 + Solomon + another built-in POS system) Everyday, branches has to extract data and send (via email/Skype) to HQ for data consolidation purpose When we first deployed our ERP, the infrastructure (e.g. Internet connection) wasn't reliable enough. That's why we went with the de-centralized model (each branch got their own server) Now, the infrastructure is mature already. And we need to consolidate data more quickly (not from branches -- HQ -- our company but something like HQ -- our company only) Goal We just have Solomon servers in distributor HQ. All the transactions in branches (retrieved from POS) will by synchronized with HQ server directly) There is a backup plan just in case the Internet goes down, or HQ server goes down Question With the above question, could you guys suggests some model for me ? Should we use Terminal services, any other solutions ? Any watchout/suggestions ? Any good article to read 'bout this ? Thanks a lot

  Read the article

• Version control and branching when using Oracle

  - by Ed Woodcock

  Hi folks: At work we're using Oracle and C#/ASP.net to handle a customer's website, this site is very large-scale so the database is very large. We use Perforce for our version control, and tack create or replace scripts to FogBugz cases whenever a database change, which has been fine until now, as we are now at a point where five developers are working on five expansions for the system, each on a seperate Perforce branch. Unfortunately, we cannot get duplicate databases, due to the database size, so everyone is still working from the same one. This is obviously a cause of problems: only ten minutes ago we had a bit of an issue where a stored procedure change for a branch propagated over to the Pre-Production server and caused a large number of crashes for the testers. Ideally, we would like a way to track these changes without having to manually keep track of them through FogBugz. My question is: how do you lot handle this situation? I'm sure there must be a good way by now to handle versioning, or at least tracking changes, in an Oracle database.

  Read the article

• Fault tolerance with a pair of tightly coupled services

  - by cogitor

  I have two tightly coupled services that can run on completely different nodes (e.g. ServiceA and ServiceB). If I start up another replicated copy of both these services for backup purposes (ServiceA-2 and ServiceB-2), what would be the best way of setting up a fault tolerant distributed system such that on a fault in any of the tightly coupled services ServiceA or ServiceB the whole communication should go through backup ServiceA-2 and ServiceB-2? Overall, all the communication should go either through both services or their backup replicas. |---- Service A | | Service B | | (backup branch - used only on fault in Service A or B) ---- Service A-2 | Service B-2 Note that in case that Service A goes down, data from Service B would be incorrect (and vice versa). Load balancing between the primary and backup branch is also not feasible.

  Read the article

• Puppet yum repo - Pull down 2.7.x vs 3.0.x

  - by Mike Purcell

  So a few weeks ago I started on the path to using puppet to automate all the configs/services. At the time I was using the EPEL repo, which installed version 2.6.x. After some reading I was trying to gain access to the flatten method available via the puppet stdlib, and thought it was available by default in the newer 2.7.x version. So I added a puppet repo with the following settings: [puppetlabs] name=Puppet Labs Packages baseurl=http://yum.puppetlabs.com/el/$releasever/products/$basearch/ enabled=1 gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=http://yum.puppetlabs.com/RPM-GPG-KEY-puppetlabs The problem with this, is it installed v3.0.x instead of 2.7.x. And apparently 3.0.x is a major upgrade which was released only a few weeks ago. Obviously I would prefer to use the 2.7.x for the next few months while PuppetLabs fix any defects which will inevitably arise after a major version. So my question is, what setting can I add to the puppet repo config to pull down only the 2.7.x branch and not the 3.0.x branch?

  Read the article

• Sharing files between multiple sites using only desktop software

  - by perlyking

  Our organisation has three sites; a head office, where the master copies of company files are stored, plus two branch offices using only workstations and a NAS or two. Currently we're talking about <10GB. At the main office, we have no admin access to the file server, as this is entirely controlled by the larger institution where we are located. For the same reason, we have no VPN remote access to this network. Instead, we simply have access to a network share using over a Novell LAN. Question: how can we share files between offices in way that minimises latency, i.e. that gives us a mirror of the main network share at each site? (There is little likelihood of concurrent editing, and we can live with the odd file conflict now and again). Up to now branch office staff have had to use GotoMyPC-type solutions to remotely access files held at the main office. Or email. I was hoping to use Google Drive on a dedicated workstation at each office to sync the contents of the network share (head office) or NAS (branch offices) via the cloud, but at my last attempt (29 Jun '12), the Google Drive installer would not allow me to designate the remote network share as the "target" folder. (I chose Google Drive over Drobbox et al. as we already use GMail for corporate mail) The next idea was to use a designated workstation at head office to mirror the network share to a local drive, then use Google Drive to push that to the cloud. This seems a step too far. Nor do I have any good ideas about how to achieve this network/local mirroring, as we can't, for example, install the rsync daemon on the server. I do not want to use Google Drive locally on each workstation as this will inconvenience users, and more importantly, move files off the backed-up, well-maintained (UPS, RAID etc) network share at head office. Our budget is only in the £100's. Should we perhaps just ditch the head office server and use something like JungleDisk? At least this presents the user with what appears to be a mapped drive.

  Read the article

• How Do I Delete Misnamed Tagged Directory Already Committed?

  - by Teno

  I'm new to using the SVN system and having hard time figuring out how to delete files uploaded mistakenly. What I've done: Committed the trunk folder with right clicking on "SVN Commit" Right clicked and choose "TortoiseSVN" - "Branch/Tag" In the section of "To path:" in the "Branch/Tag - Tortoise" window, I typed /*mydirectory*/tags/*1.0.11* where 1.0.11 was supposed to be 1.0.1.1 After realizing 1.0.11 was a mistake, to remove the directory, I right clicked on the 1.0.11 folder in Windows and selected "TortoiseSVN" - "Delete" It deleted the folder in Windows but does not delete the folder in the remote server. According to this page,http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2092344/how-do-i-delete-a-wrongly-tagged-directory-in-svn, a command can be used and I tried to type svn in the command prompt window but it gives svn is not recognized as an internal or external command. This should be a very basic question but I could not find relevant pages. Some pages suggest to use revert but I've already committed 1.0.1.1 so I'm afraid doing revert causes the newest one to be deleted. Thanks for your information.

  Read the article

• How best to integrate PPA into Debian?

  - by eicos

  I'm working with ZFS on Linux, on my Debian squeeze server. I've found a useful package in an Ubuntu PPA, apparently by one of the ZoL developers, and I would like to integrate it into my package system. However, I am really having a terrible time doing this. It seems like it would be possible if I upgraded my system to the testing branch, but I'd prefer not to do this for obvious reasons. So, what is the One True Way to do this? Or, what is a passable way to do this, i.e. one that does not involve an ice nine-like assimilation of my entire system to testing branch? Edit: Silly question. I clicked the little green "technical information about this package" on launchpad and all was revealed.

  Read the article

• Getting RINGING response on SIP UAC without sending it from the other UAC

  - by TacB0sS

  Hi, I hope this would be my last question about this SIP subject, I have managed to overcome the last issue I had by asking a friend to help me from a remote computer, I'm able to connect between the computers, but here is the thing, according to all the examples I saw, the Callee should invoke the Ringing response, but in my application case I didn't implement it yet, but I still receive on the Caller UAC a Ringing response, this is the SIP messages that are on the caller end: Outgoing Request 5: INVITE sip:[email protected] SIP/2.0 Contact: "Client 310" <sip:[email protected]> From: "Client 310" <sip:[email protected]> Max-Forwards: 32 CSeq: 2 INVITE Call-ID: [email protected] Allow: INVITE,CANCEL,ACK,BYE,OPTIONS Content-Type: application/sdp Proxy-Authorization: Digest username="310",nonce="012afffb",realm="asterisk",uri="sip:[email protected]",algorithm=MD5,response="d19ca5b98450b4be7bd4045edb8a3a2f" Via: SIP/2.0/UDP hostName.hn:5060 To: "Client 320" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=as5a8fa200 Content-Length: 257 v=0 o=310 7108915969559970847 7108915969559970847 IN IP4 xxx.xxx.x.xxx s=- i=Nu-Art Software - TacB0sS VoIP information c=IN IP4 xxx.xxx.x.xxx m=audio 3312 RTP/AVP 0 8 101 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000 a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 Incoming Response 6: SIP/2.0 100 Trying Via: SIP/2.0/UDP hostName.hn:5060;branch=f8d171d3278788df9e03eb9cf3acba70-xxx.xxx.x.xxx-2-invite-hostName.hn-5060333732;received=79.181.6.233 From: "Client 310" <sip:[email protected]> To: "Client 320" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=as5a8fa200 Call-ID: [email protected] CSeq: 2 INVITE User-Agent: Freeswitch 1.2.3 Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,OPTIONS,BYE,REFER,SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY,INFO Supported: replaces Contact: <sip:[email protected]> Content-Length: 0 Incoming Response 7: SIP/2.0 180 Ringing Via: SIP/2.0/UDP hostName.hn:5060;branch=f8d171d3278788df9e03eb9cf3acba70-xxx.xxx.x.xxx-2-invite-hostName.hn-5060333732;received=79.181.6.233 From: "Client 310" <sip:[email protected]> To: "Client 320" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=as5a8fa200 Call-ID: [email protected] CSeq: 2 INVITE User-Agent: Freeswitch 1.2.3 Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,OPTIONS,BYE,REFER,SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY,INFO Supported: replaces Contact: <sip:[email protected]> Content-Length: 0 Call to: [email protected] is Ringing Incoming Response 8: SIP/2.0 183 Session Progress Via: SIP/2.0/UDP hostName.hn:5060;branch=f8d171d3278788df9e03eb9cf3acba70-xxx.xxx.x.xxx-2-invite-hostName.hn-5060333732;received=79.181.6.233 From: "Client 310" <sip:[email protected]> To: "Client 320" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=as5a8fa200 Call-ID: [email protected] CSeq: 2 INVITE User-Agent: Freeswitch 1.2.3 Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,OPTIONS,BYE,REFER,SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY,INFO Supported: replaces Contact: <sip:[email protected]> Content-Type: application/sdp Content-Length: 264 v=0 o=root 27669 27669 IN IP4 yy.yy.yy.yy s=session c=IN IP4 yy.yy.yy.yy t=0 0 m=audio 10914 RTP/AVP 0 8 101 a=rtpmap:0 PCMU/8000 a=rtpmap:8 PCMA/8000 a=rtpmap:101 telephone-event/8000 a=fmtp:101 0-16 a=silenceSupp:off - - - - a=ptime:20 a=sendrecv Incoming Response 9: SIP/2.0 503 Service Unavailable Via: SIP/2.0/UDP hostName.hn:5060;branch=f8d171d3278788df9e03eb9cf3acba70-xxx.xxx.x.xxx-2-invite-hostName.hn-5060333732;received=79.181.6.233 From: "Client 310" <sip:[email protected]> To: "Client 320" <sip:[email protected]>;tag=as5a8fa200 Call-ID: [email protected] CSeq: 2 INVITE User-Agent: Freeswitch 1.2.3 Allow: INVITE,ACK,CANCEL,OPTIONS,BYE,REFER,SUBSCRIBE,NOTIFY,INFO Supported: replaces Content-Length: 0 I do not respond to the invite, that is why all this is happening, but why am I getting a ringing if I'm not the one sending it. Thanks, Adam.

  Read the article

• iOS: Interpreted code - where do they draw the line?

  - by d7samurai

  Apple's iOS developer guidelines state: 3.3.2 — An Application may not itself install or launch other executable code by any means, including without limitation through the use of a plug-in architecture, calling other frameworks, other APIs or otherwise. No interpreted code may be downloaded or used in an Application except for code that is interpreted and run by Apple’s Documented APIs and built-in interpreter(s). Assuming that downloading data - like XML and images (or a game level description), for example - at run-time is allowed (as is my impression), I am wondering where they draw the line between "data" and "code". Picture the scenario of an app that delivers interactive "presentations" to users (like a survey, for instance). Presentations are added continuously to the server and different presentations are made available to different users, so they cannot be part of the initial app download (this is the whole point). They are described in XML format, but being interactive, they might contain conditional branching of this sort (shown in pseudo form to exemplify): <options id="Gender"> <option value="1">Male</option> <option value="2">Female</option> </options> <branches id="Gender"> <branch value="1"> <image src="Man" /> </branch> <branch value="2"> <image src="Woman" /> </branch> </branches> When the presentation is "played" within the app, the above would be presented in two steps. First a selection screen where the user can click on either of the two choices presented ("Male" or "Female"). Next, an image will be [downloaded dynamically] and displayed based on the choice made in the previous step. Now, it's easy to imagine additional tags describing further logic still. For example, a containing tag could be added: <loop count="3"> <options... /> <branches... /> </loop> The result here being that the selection screen / image screen pair would be sequentially presented three times over, of course. Or imagine some description of a level in a game. It's easy to view that as passive "data", but if it includes, say, several doorways that the user can go through and with various triggers, traps and points attached to them etc - isn't that the same as using a script - or, indeed, interpreted code - to describe options and their conditional responses? Assuming that the interpretation engine for this XML data is already present in the app and that such presentations can only be consumed (not created or edited) in the app, how would this fare against Apple's iOS guidelines? Doesn't XML basically constitute a scripting language (couldn't any interpreted programming language simply be described by XML) in this sense? Would it be OK if the proprietary scripting language (ref the XML used above) was strictly sandboxed (how can they tell?) and not given access to the operating system in any way (but able to download content dynamically - and upload results to the authoring server)? Where does the line go?

  Read the article

• BizTalk 2009 - Naming Guidelines

  - by StuartBrierley

  The following is effectively a repost of the BizTalk 2004 naming guidlines that I have previously detailed.  I have posted these again for completeness under BizTalk 2009 and to allow an element of separation in case I find some reason to amend these for BizTalk 2009. These guidlines should be universal across any version of BizTalk you may wish to apply them to. General Rules All names should be named with a Pascal convention. Project Namespaces For message schemas: [CompanyName].XML.Schemas.[FunctionalName]* Examples:  ABC.XML.Schemas.Underwriting DEF.XML.Schemas.MarshmellowTradingExchange * Donates potential for multiple levels of functional name, such as Underwriting.Dictionary.Valuation For web services: [CompanyName].Web.Services.[FunctionalName] Examples: ABC.Web.Services.OrderJellyBeans For the main BizTalk Projects: [CompanyName].BizTalk.[AssemblyType].[FunctionalName]* Examples: ABC.BizTalk.Mappings.Underwriting ABC.BizTalk.Orchestrations.Underwriting * Donates potential for multiple levels of functional name, such as Mappings.Underwriting.Valuations Assemblies BizTalk Assembly names should match the associated Project Namespace, such as ABC.BizTalk.Mappings.Underwriting. This pertains to the formal assembly name and the DLL name. The Solution name should take the name of the main project within the solution, and also therefore the namespace for that project. Although long names such as this can be unwieldy to work with, the benefits of having the full scope available when the assemblies are installed on the target server are generally judged to outweigh this inconvenience. Messaging Artifacts Artifact Standard Notes Example Schema <DescriptiveName>.xsd   .NET Type name should match, without file extension.    .NET Namespace will likely match assembly name. PurchaseOrderAcknowledge_FF.xsd  or FNMA100330_FF.xsd Property Schema <DescriptiveName>.xsd Should be named to reflect possible common usage across multiple schemas  IspecMessagePropertySchema.xsd UnderwritingOrchestrationKeys.xsd Map <SourceSchema>2<DestinationSchema>.btm Exceptions to this may be made where the source and destination schemas share the majority of the name, such as in mainframe web service maps InstructionResponse2CustomEmailRequest.btm (exception example) AccountCustomerAddressSummaryRequest2MainframeRequest.btm Orchestration <DescriptiveName>.odx   GetValuationReports.odx SendMTEDecisionResponse.odx Send/Receive Pipeline <DescriptiveName>.btp   ValidatingXMLReceivePipeline.btp FlatFileAssembler.btp Receive Port A plainly worded phrase that will clearly explain the function.    FraudPreventionServices LetterProcessing   Receive Location A plainly worded phrase that will clearly explain the function.  ? Do we want to include the transport type here ? Arrears Web Service Send Port Group A plainly worded phrase that will clearly explain the function.   Customer Updates Send Port A plainly worded phrase that will clearly explain the function.    ABCProductUpdater LogLendingPolicyOutput Parties A meaningful name for a Trading Partner. If dealing with multiple entities within a Trading Partner organization, the Organization name could be used as a prefix.   Roles A meaningful name for the role that a Trading Partner plays.     Orchestration Workflow Shapes Shape Standard Notes Example Scopes <DescriptionOfContainedWork> or <DescOfcontainedWork><TxType>   Including info about transaction type may be appropriate in some situations where it adds significant documentation value to the diagram. HandleReportResponse         Receive Receive<MessageName> Typically, MessageName will be the same as the name of the message variable that is being received “into”. ReceiveReportResponse Send Send<MessageName> Typically, MessageName will be the same as the name of the message variable that is being sent. SendValuationDetailsRequest Expression <DescriptionOfEffect> Expression shapes should be named to describe the net effect of the expression, similar to naming a method.  The exception to this is the case where the expression is interacting with an external .NET component to perform a function that overlaps with existing BizTalk functionality – use closest BizTalk shape for this case. CreatePrintXML Decide <DescriptionOfDecision> A description of what will be decided in the “if” branch Report Type? Perform MF Save? If-Branch <DescriptionOfDecision> A (potentially abbreviated) description of what is being decided Mortgage Valuation Yes Else-Branch Else Else-branch shapes should always be named “Else” Else Construct Message (Assign) Create<Message> (for Construct)     <ExpressionDescription> (for expression) If a Construct shape contains a message assignment, it should be prefixed with “Create” followed by an abbreviated name of the message being assigned.    The actual message assignment shape contained should be named to describe the expression that is contained. CreateReportDataMV   which contains expression: ExtractReportData Construct Message (Transform) Create<Message> (for Construct)   <SourceSchema>2<DestSchema> (for transform) If a Construct shape contains a message transform, it should be prefixed with “Create” followed by an abbreviated name of the message being assigned.   The actual message transform shape contained should generally be named the same as the called map.  CreateReportDataMV   which contains transform: ReportDataMV2ReportDataMV                 Construct Message (containing multiple shapes)   If a Construct Message shape uses multiple assignments or transforms, the overall shape should be named to communicate the net effect, using no prefix.     Call/Start Orchestration Call<OrchestrationName>   Start<OrchestrationName>     Throw Throw<ExceptionType> The corresponding variable name for the exception type should (often) be the same name as the exception type, only camel-cased. ThrowRuleException, which references the “ruleException” variable.     Parallel <DescriptionOfParallelWork> Parallel shapes should be named by a description of what work will be done in parallel   Delay <DescriptionOfWhatWaitingFor> Delay shapes should be named by a description of what is being waited for.  POAcknowledgeTimeout Listen <DescriptionOfOutcomes> Listen shapes should be named by a description that captures (to the degree possible) all the branches of the Listen shape POAckOrTimeout FirstShippingBid Loop <DescriptionOfLoop> A (potentially abbreviated) description of what the loop is. ForEachValuationReport WhileErrorFlagTrue Role Link   See “Roles” in messaging naming conventions above.   Suspend <ReasonDescription> Describe what action an administrator must take to resume the orchestration.  More detail can be passed to error property – and should include what should be done by the administrator before resuming the orchestration. ReEstablishCreditLink Terminate <ReasonDescription> Describe why the orchestration terminated.  More detail can be passed to error property. TimeoutsExpired Call Rules Call<PolicyName> The policy name may need to be abbreviated. CallLendingPolicy Compensate Compensate or Compensate<TxName> If the shape compensates nested transactions, names should be suffixed with the name of the nested transaction – otherwise it should simple be Compensate. CompensateTransferFunds Orchestration Types Type Standard Notes Example Multi-Part Message Types <LogicalDocumentType>   Multi-part types encapsulate multiple parts.  The WSDL spec indicates “parts are a flexible mechanism for describing the logical abstract content of a message.”  The name of the multi-part type should correspond to the “logical” document type, i.e. what the sum of the parts describes. InvoiceReceipt   (which might encapsulate an invoice acknowledgement and a payment voucher.) Multi-Part Messsage Part <SchemaNameOfPart> Should be named (most often) simply for the schema (or simple type) associated with the part. InvoiceHeader Messages <SchemaName> or <MuliPartMessageTypeName> Should be named based on the corresponding schema type or multi-part message type.  If there is more than one variable of a type, name for its use within the orchestration. ReportDataMV UpdatedReportDataMV Variables <DescriptiveName>   TargetFilePath StringProcessor Port Types <FunctionDescription>PortType Should be named to suggest the nature of an endpoint, with pascal casing and suffixed with “PortType”.   If there will be more than one Port for a Port Type, the Port Type should be named according to the abstract service supplied.   The WSDL spec indicates port types are “a named set of abstract operations and the abstract messages involved” that also encapsulates the message pattern (i.e. one-way, request-response, solicit-response) that all operations on the port type adhere to. ReceiveReportResponsePortType  or CallEAEPortType (This is a two way port, so Receove or Send alone would not be appropriate.  Could have been ProcessEAERequestPortType etc....) Ports <FunctionDescription>Port Should be named to suggest a grouping of functionality, with pascal casing and suffixed with “Port.”  ReceiveReportResponsePort CallEAEPort Correlation types <DescriptiveName> Should be named based on the logical name of what is being used to correlate.  PurchaseOrderNumber Correlation sets <DescriptiveName> Should be named based on the corresponding correlation type.  If there is more than one, it should be named to reflect its specific purpose within the orchestration.   PurchaseOrderNumber Orchestration parameters <DescriptiveName> Should be named to match the caller’s names for the corresponding variables where appropriate.

  Read the article

• Code bases for desktop and mobile versions of the same app

  - by Code-Guru

  I have written a small Java Swing desktop application. It seems like a natural step to port it to Android since I am interested in learning how to program for that platform. I believe that I can reuse some of my existing code base. (Of course, exactly how much reuse I can get out of it will only be determined as I start coding the Android app.) Currently I am hosting my Java Swing app on Sourceforge.net and use Git for version control. As I start creating the Android app, I am considering two options: Add the Android code to my existing repository, creating separate directories and Java packages for the Android-specific code and resources. Create a new Sourceforge project (or even host a new one) and creating a new Git repository. a. With a new repository, I can simply add the files from my original project that I will reuse. (I don't particularly like this option as it will be difficult to modify both copies of the same file in both repositories.) b. Or I can branch the original repository. This adds the difficulty of merging changes of shared source files. Mostly I am trying to decide between choices 1. and 2b. If I'm going to branch the existing repository, what advantages are there to hosting it as a separate SF project (or even using another OSS hosting service) as opposed to keeping all my source code in the current SF project?

  Read the article

• Render rivers in a grid.

  - by Gabriel A. Zorrilla

  I have created a random height map and now i want to create rivers. I've made an algorithm based on a* to make rivers flow from peaks to sea and now i'm in the quest of figuring out an elegant algorithm to render them. It's a 2D, square, mapgrid. The cells which the river pases has a simple integer value with this form :rivernumber && pointOrder. Ie: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16...1+N for the first river, 20,21,22,23...2+N for the second, etc. This is created in the map grid generation time and it's executed just once, when the world is generated. I wanted to treat each river as a vector, but there is a problem, if the same river has branches (because i put some noise to generate branches), i can not just connect the points in order. The second alternative is to generate a complex algorithm where analizes each point, checks if the next is not a branch, if so trigger another algorithm that take care of the branch then returns to the main river, etc. Very complex and inelegant. Perhaps there is a solution in the world generation algorithm or in the river rendering algorithm that is commonly used in these cases and i'm not aware of. Any tips? Thanks!!

  Read the article

• What's so difficult about SVN merges? [closed]

  - by Mason Wheeler

  Possible Duplicate: I’m a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS? Every once in a while, you hear someone saying that distributed version control (Git, HG) is inherently better than centralized version control (like SVN) because merging is difficult and painful in SVN. The thing is, I've never had any trouble with merging in SVN, and since you only ever hear that claim being made by DVCS advocates, and not by actual SVN users, it tends to remind me of those obnoxious commercials on TV where they try to sell you something you don't need by having bumbling actors pretend that the thing you already have and works just fine is incredibly difficult to use. And the use case that's invariably brought up is re-merging a branch, which again reminds me of those strawman product advertisements; if you know what you're doing, you shouldn't (and shouldn't ever have to) re-merge a branch in the first place. (Of course it's difficult to do when you're doing something fundamentally wrong and silly!) So, discounting the ridiculous strawman use case, what is there in SVN merging that is inherently more difficult than merging in a DVCS system?

  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

• Is there an established or defined best practice for source control branching between development and production builds?

  - by Matthew Patrick Cashatt

  Thanks for looking. I struggled in how to phrase my question, so let me give an example in hopes of making more clear what I am after: I currently work on a dev team responsible for maintaining and adding features to a web application. We have a development server and we use source control (TFS). Each day everyone checks in their code and when the code (running on the dev server) passes our QA/QC program, it goes to production. Recently, however, we had a bug in production which required an immediate production fix. The problem was that several of us developers had code checked in that was not ready for production so we had to either quickly complete and QA the code, or roll back everything, undo pending changes, etc. In other words, it was a mess. This made me wonder: Is there an established design pattern that prevents this type of scenario. It seems like there must be some "textbook" answer to this, but I am unsure what that would be. Perhaps a development branch of the code and a "release-ready" or production branch of the code?

  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

• Branching and CI Builds with Agile

  - by Bob Horn

  We follow many agile processes, including automated tests, continuous integration, sprint reviews, etc... We're currently having a debate about how often we should branch release builds. We've been doing two-week sprints and trying to deploy to production at the end of each sprint. Some of us think we should be branching every sprint. Some of us think that's overkill. If a project encompasses three Visual Studio solutions, and we branch every sprint, then that's three branches, and three CI builds to create every two weeks. If we do this for six months, we'll end up with 36 branches and 36 CI builds. There is overhead involved in that. For those of us that think that branching every sprint is overkill, we don't have a very good alternative. On my last project, we deployed some solutions from the Main trunk. Yeah, that's not good, but it saved on some of the overhead. What's the right way to manage branching/releasing and CI builds, using agile, when we have such short (two-week) sprint cycles?

  Read the article

• Is it correct to fix bugs without adding new features when releasing software for system testing?

  - by Pratik

  This question is to experienced testers or test leads. This is a scenario from a software project: Say the dev team have completed the first iteration of 10 features and released it to system testing. The test team has created test cases for these 10 features and estimated 5 days for testing. The dev team of course cannot sit idle for 5 days and they start creating 10 new features for next iteration. During this time the test team found defects and raised some bugs. The bugs are prioritised and some of them have to be fixed before next iteration. The catch is that they would not accept the new release with any new features or changes to existing features until all those bugs fixed. The test team says that's how can we guarantee a stable release for testing if we also introduce new features along with the bug fix. They also cannot do regression tests of all their test cases each iteration. Apparently this is proper testing process according to ISQTB. This means the dev team has to create a branch of code solely for bug fixing and another branch where they continue development. There is more merging overhead specially with refactoring and architectural changes. Can you agree if this is a common testing principle. Is the test team's concern valid. Have you encountered this in practice in your project.

  Read the article

• Is it good idea to require to commit only working code?

  - by Astronavigator

  Sometimes I hear people saying something like "All committed code must be working". In some articles people even write descriptions how to create svn or git hooks that compile and test code before commit. In my company we usually create one branch for a feature, and one programmer usually works in this branch. I often (1 per 100, I think and as I think with good reason) do non-compilable commits. It seems to me that requirement of "always compilable/stable" commits conflicts with the idea of frequent commits. A programmer would rather make one commit in a week than test the whole project's stability/compilability ten times a day. For only compilable code I use tags and some selected branches (trunk etc). I see these reasons to commit not fully working or not compilable code: If I develop a new feature, it is hard to make it work writing a few lines of code. If I am editing a feature, it is again sometimes hard to keep code working every time. If I am changing some function's prototype or interface, I would also make hundreds of changes, not mechanical changes, but intellectual. Sometimes one of them could cause me to carry out hundreds of commits (but if I want all commits to be stable I should commit 1 time instead of 100). In all these cases to make stable commits I would make commits containing many-many-many changes and it will be very-very-very hard to find out "What happened in this commit?". Another aspect of this problem is that compiling code gives no guarantee of proper working. So is it good idea to require every commit to be stable/compilable? Does it depends on branching model or CVS? In your company, is it forbidden to make non compilable commits? Is it (and why) a bad idea to use only selected branches (including trunk) and tags for stable versions?

  Read the article

• Tomcat + Spring + CI workflow

  - by ex3v

  We're starting our very first project with Spring and java web stack. This project will be mainly about rewriting quite large ERP/CRM from Zend Framework to Java. Important factor in my question is that I come from php territory, where things (in terms of quality) tend to look different than in java world. Fatcs: there will be 2-3 developers, at least one of developers uses Windows, rest uses Linux, there is one remote linux-based machine, which should handle test and production instances, after struggling with buggy legacy code, we want to introduce good programming and development practices (CI, tests, clean code and so on) client: internal, frequent business logic changes, scrum, daily deployments What I want to achieve is good workflow on as many development stages as possible (coding - commiting - testing - deploying). The problem is that I've never done this before, so I don't know what are best practices to do this. What I have so far is: developers code locally, there is vagrant instance on every development machine, managed by puppet. It contains the same linux, jenkins and tomcat versions as production machine, while coding, developer deploys to vagrant machine, after local merge to test branch, jenkins on vagrant handles tests, when everything is fine, developer pushes commits and merges jenkins on remote machine pulls commit from test branch, runs tests and so on, if everything looks green, jenkins deploys to test tomcat instance Deployment to production is manual (altough it can be done using helping scripts) when business logic is tested by other divisions and everything looks fine to client. Now, the real question: does above make any sense? Things that I'm not sure about: Remote machine: won't there be any problems with two (or even three, as jenkins might need one) instances of same app on tomcat? Using vagrant to develop on php environment is just vise. Isn't this overkill while using Tomcat? I mean, is there higher probability that tomcat will act the same on every machine? Is there sense of having local jenkins on vagrant?

  Read the article

• Maintaining Two Separate Software Versions From the Same Codebase in Version Control

  - by Joseph

  Let's say that I am writing two different versions of the same software/program/app/script and storing them under version control. The first version is a free "Basic" version, while the second is a paid "Premium" version that takes the codebase of the free version and expands upon it with a few extra value-added features. Any new patches, fixes, or features need to find their way into both versions. I am currently considering using master and develop branches for the main codebase (free version) along side master-premium and develop-premium branches for the paid version. When a change is made to the free version and merged to the master branch (after thorough testing on develop of course), it gets copied over to the develop-premium branch via the cherry-pick command for more testing and then merged into master-premium. Is this the best workflow to handle this situation? Are there any potential problems, caveats, or pitfalls to be aware of? Is there a better branching strategy than what I have already come up with? Your feedback is highly appreciated! P.S. This is for a PHP script stored in Git, but the answers should apply to any language or VCS.

  Read the article

• VCS strategy with TeamCity and CI

  - by Luke Puplett

  I'm planning a strategy which seeks to allow automated deployment of a website codebase into QA and production on check-in. We're using the fabulous TeamCity. We want to control release to live production; i.e. not have every check-in on Trunk go live. So my plan is to use Trunk as QA. Committing to Trunk triggers deployment to QA. I will then have a Production branch which also triggers deployment on commit, to the live site. The idea is simply that Trunk represents the mainline codebase but it hasn't gone live yet. We can branch features and do daily pulls from Trunk into those feature branches as per normal and merge/re-integrate into Trunk when we're happy for it to go to QA. When the BAs give the nod, we then smash a bottle of champagne and merge Trunk to Production and out she goes. I've never seen it done like this. Other greenfield CI strategies involve hiding features and code from production via config - this codebase can't cope with that - or just having CI on QA and taking cuts and manually pushing to live. Does my plan sound alright?

  Read the article

• How to collaborate on features using github

  - by Robert Dailey

  github encourages 1 fork per user, so that that user can work independently on a feature and then request that feature to be accepted into the main repository via pull request. However, what if 2 developers need to collaborate on that feature? What is the ideal workflow for this? I could see a number of options: Both developers fork the original repository. Each developer pulls/pushes changes between each other's repository. This seems like a lot of work (tiny micro operations) and also creates a delay between changes, so increases the window for conflicts. Developer 1 forks from the main repository, developer 2 forks from developer 1. Same as #1 mainly but hopefully simplifies Developer 2's life a little? Developer 1 gives Developer 2 permissions to his own fork, so they both work out of the same central repository. Not sure if this is ideal. I'm also curious where branches come into this. Obviously there would be a branch for the feature itself but that branch can't exist in a single place, it would have to exist on multiple forks and be synchronized. Basically just really confused about this workflow, would like an approach for how this can be best accomplished.

  Read the article

• Need advice concerning Feature Based Development when knowledge DB is involved

  - by voroninp

  We develop BackOffice application which is used to edit our knowledge DB. Now our main product's development team is shifting to the feature based development and we need to support several DB's with not identical data schemes. (DS changes slightly from DB to DB) The information from knowledge Db is extracted by the script and then is distributed to the clients. We also need to support merging these DB's. We now analyze pros and cons of different approaches. We discuss this one: One working DB (WDB) with one DB for each feature branch (FDB). The approved data is moved from WDB to FDB. So we need to support only one script for each branch. This script will extract data from corresponding FDB. Nevertheless we are to code the differences between FDBs and WDB manually. May be some automatic mapping tools exist? I also wish to know whether classic solutions to the alike problems already exist. Can anyone share the best practices for this case?

  Read the article

• I'm a SubVersion geek, why I should consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DRCS?

  - by Pierre 303

  I tried to understand the benefits of DRCS. I must recognize I still doesn't get it. Here are my current beliefs. I'm ready to destroy them thanks to your expertise. I know I'm probably resisting to change. I just want to evaluate how much that change will cost me. Merging hell can be solved by just applying good practices such as continuous integration. There is no such good practice than having a private branch for a few days when you are in a self managing team with real collaboration. I use branching for that for very rare cases, and I keep a branch for every major version, in which I fix bugs merged from the trunk. I see the value of committing offline then pushing online. But continuous integration can help on this too. I work on very large projects, and I never noticed SubVersion to be slow even when the server is 5000km away on the internet and my small connection (less than 1024D/128U). Harddisk space is cheap, so having a copy of source code locally doesn't look like a problem to me. I already have a full copy of the last version on my disk. I don't understand the distributed thing there (maybe THIS IS the key to my understanding?) I not new in the industry, and judging by my difficulty to understand, I don't think DRCS are easier to understand than SubVersion like. If fact, I don't understand... Doctor, give me your diagnostic.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95  | Next Page >