Search Results

Search found 1748 results on 70 pages for 'branch prediction'.

Page 9/70 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

• Mercurial Branching Oddity

  - by Steve Horn

  I'm trying to understand why the below is occuring: It appears that I have started another branch, but it has no name, and I do not remember creating a new branch. Why did this new head(branch) get created? How do I keep it from happening?

  Read the article

• How to create a new branch using TortoiseSVN

  - by the_drow

  How do I create a new branch with my working copy using TortoiseSVN? I see the branch option but I don't see a way to name it somehow.

  Read the article

• Migrating svn repo with non-flat branch hierarchy to mercurial

  - by Assaf Lavie

  Is there a conversion utility from svn to hg that can deal with a branch hierarchy that's more complex than just a flat list of branches under /branches? My repository has a directory that looks (conceptually) like this: /branches /projectA /v1.x /v1.1 /v1.2 etc.. IOW I need a tool that can get a tree structure as input that represents the branch hierarchy, and migrate this into hg (could be flat in HG, don't really care).

  Read the article

• Find the git branch or branches from commit id

  - by Senthil A Kumar

  Hi All, Actually am try to get a report on merge conflicts. I used 'git blame' to see who has changed what line, but i couldn't find the branch and repository name information. Is there a way to find the repository name, branch name and author name of a file from 'git blame' or from commit ids' so that whenever a merge conflict occurs i can send an email to the authors who have touched that file/lines to resolve it. Thnaks Senthil A Kumar

  Read the article

• What is "branch-on-sign expressions"?

  - by Pavel Shved

  As far as I understand the "branch-on-sign" is the name of some kind of if statement that does something depending on sign. I'm not sure that it's just if (x<0) then ... else .... However, the name "branch-on-sign" seems to denote something very concrete. So, what is it? Perhaps, it's language-specific, but I don't really know. Probably, it's related to embedded development.

  Read the article

• CVS branch name from tag name

  - by Jamie

  I have a number of modules in CVS with different tags. How would I go about getting the name of the branch these tagged files exist on? I've tried checking out a file from the module using cvs co -r TAG and then doing cvs log but it appears to give me a list of all of the branches that the file exists on, rather than just a single branch name. Also this needs to be an automated process, so I can't use web based tools like viewvc to gather this info.

  Read the article

• hg : how to convert a single subversion branch

  - by shodanex

  I have a subversion repository, where each branch is a separate project. I would like to change this architecture, and to gradually move to mercurial. How can I convert a single branch of a subversion repo into an hg repository. hg version : 1.01

  Read the article

• TeamCity and pending Git merge branch commit keeps build with failed tests

  - by Vladimir

  We use TeamCity for continuous integration and Git for source control. Generally it works pretty well - convenient, modern and good us quick feedback when tests fails. There is a strange behavior related to Git merge specifics. Here are steps of the case: First developer pulls from master repo. Second developer pulls from master repo. First developer makes commit A locally. Second developer makes commit B locally; Second developer pushes commit B. First developer want to push commit A but unable because he have to pull commit B first. First developer pull's from remote reposity. First developer pushes commit A and generated merge branch commit. The history of commits in master repo is following: B second developer A first developer merge branch first developer. Now let's assume that Second Developer fixed some failing tests in his commit B. What TeamCity will do is following: Commit B arrives - TeamCity makes build #1 with all tests passed Commit A arrives - TeamCity makes build #2 (without commit B) test bar becomes Red! TeamCity thought that Pending "Merge Branch" commit doesn't contain any changes (any new files) - but it actually does contain the merge of commit B, so the TeamCity don't want to make new build here and make tests green. Here are two problems: 1. In our case we have failed tests returning back in second commit (commit A) 2. TeamCity don't want to make a new build and make tests back green. Does anybody know how to fix both of this problems. I consider some reasonable general approach.

  Read the article

• How to remove accidental branch in TortoiseHg?

  - by msorens

  (I am a relative newcomer to TortoiseHg, so bear with me :-) I use TortoiseHg on two machines to talk to my remote source repository. I made changes on one machine, committed them, and attempted to push them to the remote repository BUT I forgot to first do a pull to get the latest code first. The push gave me a few lines of output, suggesting I may have forgotten to pull first (true!) and mentioned something like "abort: push creates new remote branches...". So I did a pull, which added several nodes to the head of my graph in the repository explorer. The problem is that the push I tried to do is now showing as a branch in the repository explorer. Looking from the server side (codeplex), it shows no sign of my attempted push, indicating this accidental branch is still local on my machine. How could I remove this accidental branch? I tried selecting that node in the graph then doing "revert" but it did not seem to do anything. I am wondering if it would be simplest to just discard my directory tree on my local machine and do a completely new, clean pull from the server...?

  Read the article

• Can I keep git from pushing the master branch to all remotes by default?

  - by Curtis

  I have a local git repository with two remotes ('origin' is for internal development, and 'other' is for an external contractor to use). The master branch in my local repository tracks the master in 'origin', which is correct. I also have a branch 'external' which tracks the master in 'other'. The problem I have now is that my master brach ALSO wants to push to the master in 'other' as well, which is an issue. Is there any way I can specify that the local master should NOT push to other/master? I've already tried updating my .git/config file to include: [branch "master"] remote = origin merge = refs/heads/master [branch "external"] remote = other merge = refs/heads/master [push] default = upstream But remote show still shows that my master is pushing to both remotes: toko:engine cmlacy$ git remote show origin Password: * remote origin Fetch URL: <REPO LOCATION> Push URL: <REPO LOCATION> HEAD branch: master Remote branches: master tracked refresh-hook tracked Local branch configured for 'git pull': master merges with remote master Local ref configured for 'git push': master pushes to master (up to date) Those are all correct. toko:engine cmlacy$ git remote show other Password: * remote other Fetch URL: <REPO LOCATION> Push URL: <REPO LOCATION> HEAD branch: master Remote branch: master tracked Local branch configured for 'git pull': external merges with remote master Local ref configured for 'git push': master pushes to master (local out of date) That last section is the problem. 'external' should merge with other/master, but master should NEVER push to other/master. It's never gong to work.

  Read the article

• Clearcase - selective merge.

  - by Keshav

  Hi, I have a peculiar Clearcase doubt. I cannot fully describe why I'm doing such a confusing architecture, but I need to do it (thanks to the mistake done by someone long back). Ok, here's a bit of detail: B1 is a contaminated branch where both my group's changes and another group's changes got mixed together so badly that there is no way of finding which code is whose). So the solution proposed is to create a new branch called B2 (at the same level as B1) and put all the unmodified code of the other group on it (The way to do that would be to merge B1 with B2 and then go about removing all changes from it till it becomes original). Then create a CR branch on B1 and keep only my group's newly added files or modified files on that branch. Finally create an integration branch out of B2 and merge the changes from CR branch of B1 to integration branch of B2. So here is what I did: (The use case is where I have dir D where file a, b and c are there. My group ended up modifying file a while b and c are not modified at all). There is a branch B1 on which there are files a, b and c. There is another branch B2. A merge is done from B1 to B2. Now B2 also has a, b and c. At this point both branch B1 and B2 are same. Now I delete file a from branch B2 (rmname). Now B2 has b and c only. I put a label to this branch called Label1. This makes the code with label Label1 as the unmodified code from other group. Now I create a sub branch called CR1 from B1 and delete all the files that are there in B2 branch (i.e b and c) such that it contains only the modified code from original code on it. In my case it is file a. At this point branch B2 with label Label1 has files b and c (those are unmodified code) and branch CR1 coming off B1 has only a (that is modified by us). Now I create another branch called integration branch that comes off B2 Label1. And then I do a merge of CR branch on to that expecting that it will have all three files a, b and c for me. All I'd need to do is to do a version tree view and see who modified what. But the problem I face is that since I had done a rmname of file a on branch B2 earlier to putting Label. The merge does not really take the file a from CR branch. How to I get around that problem. I want to selectively merge. Is it possible? sorry if it is a bad design. I'm not really conversant with Clear case and have limited options and time to clear some one else's mess.

  Read the article

• Best practices to deal with "slightly different" branches of source code

  - by jedi_coder

  This question is rather agnostic than related to a certain version control program. Assume there is a source code tree under certain distributed version control. Let's call it A. At some point somebody else clones it and gets its own copy. Let's call it B. I'll call A and B branches, even if some version control tools have different definitions for branches (some might call A and B repositories). Let's assume that branch A is the "main" branch. In the context of distributed version control this only means that branch A is modified much more actively and the owner of branch B periodically syncs (pulls) new updates from branch A. Let's consider that a certain source file in branch B contains a class (again, it's also language agnostic). The owner of branch B considers that some class methods are more appropriate and groups them together by moving them inside the class body. Functionally nothing has changed - this is a very trivial refactoring of the code. But the change gets reflected in diffs. Now, assuming that this change from branch B will never get merged into branch A, the owner of branch B will always get this difference when pulling from branch A and merging into his own workspace. Even if there's only one such trivial change, the owner of branch B needs to resolve conflicts every time when pulling from branch A. As long as branches A and B are modified independently, more and more conflicts like this appear. What is the workaround for this situation? Which workflow should the owner of branch B follow to minimize the effort for periodically syncing with branch A?

  Read the article

• To get a prompt which indicates Git-branch in Zsh

  - by Masi

  I run the following codes separately as my prompt unsuccessfully in .zshrc. This suggests me that apparently I do not have a program called __git_ps1. It is not in MacPorts. #1 PROMPT="$(__git_ps1 " \[\033[1;32m\] (%s)\[\033[0m\]")\$"$ #2 PROMPT="$(__git_ps1 " (%s)")\$"$ #3 # Get the name of the branch we are on git_prompt_info() { branch_prompt=$(__git_ps1) if [ -n "$branch_prompt" ]; then status_icon=$(git_status) echo $branch_prompt $status_icon fi } # Show character if changes are pending git_status() { if current_git_status=$(git status | grep 'added to commit' 2> /dev/null); then echo "?" fi } autoload -U colors colors setopt prompt_subst PROMPT=' %~%{$fg_bold[black]%}$(git_prompt_info) ? %{$reset_color%}' How can you get a prompt which shows the name of a Git-branch?

  Read the article

• When should you branch?

  - by Ben Aston

  When working with a SCM system, when should you branch?

  Read the article

• Non-existent file in limbo prevents push to remote branch (Bazaar VCS)

  - by das_weezul

  Hi! I use Bazaar VCS to version files locally on my notebook. When im in the office I merge the changes to a repository on a windows share and also push all the files there (for backup reasons). My Problem: The last push resulted in an error, because I added a file with a very long filename (I had that problem before ... python doesn't like long filenames). So I removed the file (I didn't need it anyway) and forgot about the problem for a while, because commiting still worked fine. The next time I wanted to push my new revision I got a new error: bzr: ERROR: [Error 3] Das System kann den angegebenen Pfad nicht finden: u'//path/to/remote/branch/.bzr/checkout/limbo/new-8/loooooooongfilename.xls' translation: bzr: ERROR: [Error 3] The system can't find the following path: What I've tried: Deleting the limbo folder-- limbo folder doesn't exist Create the missing path with a dummy-file -- bazaar locks the branch -- unlock -- same problem as before bzr check -- Everything is fine -- No success bzr reconcile -- No success Thanks for reading ;o)

  Read the article

• How to branch with TortoiseHG

  - by Michael Tiller

  I downloaded TortoiseHg 1.0 for evaluation. For the life of me I can't figure out how to make a branch. It seems to understand branches (e.g. in its repository browser) but I just can't seem to find a way to make a branch. This seems like such a fundamental capability since out of the often touted benefits of DVC is the lightweight branching. I Googled around and couldn't find much discussion of this topic (at least for recent versions) so I have to assume I'm missing something, right?

  Read the article

• Merge changes when a file on a branch has split into two files on the master

  - by carleeto

  This is basically the result of a massive class C on the master having been refactored down the line into two smaller classes, C1 and C2. C was then made a subclass of C2 and cut down to a skeletal version for backward compatibility. So from that point on, master contained C, C1 and C2. On that master commit git said C was renamed to C1. The branch was last updated before this happened. (All C++ code, if it helps to visualize the files involved) Obviously, when I tried a rebase of the branch onto master, there were conflicts that needed to be resolved. As usual, I used mergetool. So now the mergetool comes up with the following: On Local, I have the skeletal version of C. Base and Remote have a bunch of changes to C. Because the skeletal version of C exists on Local, I conclude that the changes from Base and Remote should actually go into C1, leaving C alone. My question is, how do I do this?

  Read the article

• Git: How to find all commits in branch A that originated in derived branch B merged back into A?

  - by Michael Ludwig

  In Git, given (1) a branch A and (2) a branch B derived from A at some point in the past and then merged back into A, how can I find all the commits now in A that originated in B? The intent is to identify the changeset of work performed in B now in A to more quickly track down issues. A squash commit would obviously and conveniently pack the entire changeset in one commit for easy reference, but the drawbacks (such as loss of information and individual attributability) make this option undesirable for us. Hence my question.

  Read the article

• How to move a branch backwards in git?

  - by karlthorwald

  The title is not very clear. What I actually need to do often is the following: Let's say I have a development going on with several commits c1,c2,... and 3 branches A,B,C c1--c2--c3--(B)--c4--(A,C) Branch A and C are at the same commit. Now I want branch A to go back where B is, so that it loks like this: c1--c2--c3--(A,B)--c4--(C) Important is that this has to happen locally and on github. Sorry for my bad git speak, I hope I can make clear what it is.

  Read the article

• WPF: Calling a method from a different "branch" of the tree

  - by sofri

  Hey, I'm doing a WPF Application. The tree looks like this: SurfaceWindow --- Startscreen ..........................-------- Page---------- Subpage I'm trying to call a method from the "Subpage" from the "Code Behind" of the Startscreen(Startscreen.xaml.cs). The method from the Subpage looks like this: public void showTheme(ThemeViewModel theme) { ... } If know that I can call it when I'm on the "Page" or the "SurfaceWindow", because it's in the same "branch" of the tree, and I just do something like this: ThemeViewModel theme = (ThemeViewModel)mvm.CurrentItem.ThemeViewModel; katalog.katalogblatt.showTheme(theme); But how do I do it when I'm not on the same branch of the tree and want to call the method?

  Read the article

• Branch for each developer in GIT repo

  - by Peter

  I'd like to move my project to GitHub from local svn repository. Multiple developers are curently working on this project. I was thinking that each developer should have their own branch in which they would commit changes. When manager review their work, he will merge it into master branch. I don't want separate repository for each developer as GitHub has limited number of private repositories. Is this a good idea? What are other alternatives?

  Read the article

• Can git switch branch without the modification

  - by hguser

  I have a project which have completed the basic models(at master), then I commit them. Then I create two branchs user and product using: git checkout -b user git checkout -b product git checkout user Then I add the codes in the user branch, but I found that I have to make some changes for the basic models. Then I switch to master: git checkout master But I found that the modification I made in the user branch is visible in the working directory now. How to avoid this? Since the change to master and modification will be frequency.

  Read the article

• SVN tool to rebase a branch in git style

  - by timmow

  Are there any tools available that will let me rebase in git style an SVN branch onto a new parent? So, in the following situation, I create a feature branch, and there are commits to the trunk E---F---G Feature / A---B---C---D--H--I trunk I'm looking for a tool which copies the trunk, and applies the commits one by one, letting me resolve any conflicts if any exist - but each commit retains the same commit message, and is still a separate commit. E'---F'---G' Feature / A---B---C---D--H--I trunk So commit E' will be a commit with the same changes as E, except in the case of E causing a conflict, in which case E' will differ from E in that E' has the conflicts resolved, and the same commit message as E. I'm looking for this as it helps in keeping branches up to date with trunk - the svnmerge.py / mergeinfo way does not help, as you still need to resolve your changes when you merge back to trunk.

  Read the article

• Is there a 3 way merger tool that “understands” common refactoring?

  - by Ian Ringrose

  When a simple refactoring like “rename field” has been done on one branch it can be very hard to merge the changes into the other branches. (Extract method is much harder as the merge tools don’t seem to match the unchanged blocks well) Now in my dreams, I am thinking of a tool that can record (or work out) what well defined refactoring operations have been done on one branch and then “replay” them on the other branch, rather than trying to merge every line the refactoring has affected. see also "Is there an intelligent 3rd merge tool that understands VB.NET" for the other half of my pain! Also has anyone try something like MolhadoRef (blog article about MolhadoRef and Refactoring-aware SCM), This is, in theory, refactoring-aware source control.

  Read the article

• Git: Merge in only one commit

  - by Ivan

  Usually, I work with branches in Git, but I don't like to see hundreds of branches in my working tree (Git history). I'm wondering if there is a method in Git to "join" all commits in a branch in only one commit (ideally with a clear commit message). Something like this: git checkout -b branch <some work> git commit -a -m "commit 1" <some work> git commit -a -m "commit 2" <some work> git commit -a -m "commit 3" git checkout master git SUPER-JOIN branch -m "super commit" After this, only "super commit" will exist in the git log.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >