Search Results

Search found 1622 results on 65 pages for 'branch'.

Page 11/65 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • How can I determine if a given git hash exists on a given branch?

    - by pinko
    Background: I use an automated build system which takes a git hash as input, as well as the name of the branch on which that hash exists, and builds it. However, the build system uses the hash alone to check out the code and build it -- it simply stores the branch name, as given, in the build DB metadata. I'm worried about developers accidentally providing the wrong branch name when they kick off a build, causing confusion when people are looking through the build history. So how can I confirm, before passing along the hash and branch name to the build system, that the given hash does in fact come from the given branch?

    Read the article

  • How should I manage "reverting" a branch done with bookmarks in mercurial?

    - by Earlz
    I have an open source project on bitbucket. Recently, I've been working on an experimental branch which I (for whatever reason) didn't make an actual branch for. Instead what I did was use bookmarks. So I made two bookmarks at the same revision test --the new code I worked on that should now be abandoned(due to an experiment failure) main -- the stable old code that works I worked in test. I also pushed from test to my server, which ended up switching the tip tag to the new unstable code, when I really would've rather it stayed at main. I "switched" back to the main bookmark by doing a hg update main and then committing an insignificant change. So, I pushed this with hg push -f and now my source control is "correct" on the server. I know that there should be a cleaner way to "switch" branches. What should I do in the future for this kind of operation?

    Read the article

  • Removing part of a branch

    - by benPearce
    In our codebase we are using the following structure, using TFS / - Build - Development - Dev1 - Dev2 - Main - Releases - Rel1 - Rel2 The Development and Releases sections contain branches off main. The Build section sits outside the branching. Within each of the branches there is a section which should not have been included within the branching which I would like to move under Build. Is it possible to move this section out and remove its branching information? If I do a rename what impact might this have when creating new branches or merging?

    Read the article

  • how to deploy web application directly from git master branch

    - by mobile.linkr
    For educational purpose, I am writing a server instance in GCE(google compute engine) to serve a few web apps mostly (to be) written in Dart and Polymer. My workflow is, when my students log-in the server above, they will automatically fork those web apps into their own registries in their own server instances for further development. My issues are, How to serve web applications(they are git registries as well) in GCE like Github Pages? Is it possible to manipulate Github Pages to serve web apps mostly using Dart and Polymer packages? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Best practices to keep up a diverging branch of code

    - by JS_is_bad
    I'm in a situation where some minor patches I've submitted to an open-source project were ignored or explicitly not accepted. I consider them useful, but more important is that I need the functionality they implement. I don't want to push my ideas and suggestions anymore to the main contributors, because I don't want to turn this into an ego issue. I've decided that my best bet would be just to use what I wrote for my own purposes. I don't want to fork the whole source code tree because I like how things are generally working, I'm just not happy with details. But I do realize that the project will evolve and I would like to use the new features that will eventually appear. I understand that I'll have to merge all new things into my own source tree. Are there any best practices for this scenario?

    Read the article

  • For Loops in MIPS assembly

    - by John Moffitt
    I'm having problems getting my processor to simulate correctly and I think I've narrowed it down to the program I'm giving it. 1. li $R1, 0 2. li $R2, 0x100 3. li $R6, 1 4. li $R8, 0 5. li $R9, 20 6. lw $R3, 0($R1) 7. lw $R4, 4($R1) 8. add $R5, $R3, $R4 9. srlv $R5, $R5, $R6 10. sw $R5, 0($R2) 11. addi $R1, $R1, 4 12. addi $R2, $R2, 4 13. addi $R8, $R8, 1 14. slt $R7, $R8, $R9 15. bnq $R7, $zero, -9 It should iterate through the bottom portion 20 times and then exit. I'm particularly unsure about the branch instruction but I can't find anything wrong with it so : /

    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

  • Detach many subdirectories into a new, separate Git repository

    - by prisonerjohn
    This question is based on http://stackoverflow.com/questions/359424/detach-subdirectory-into-separate-git-repository Instead of detaching a single subdirectory, I want to detach a couple. For example, my current directory tree looks like this: /apps /AAA /BBB /CCC /libs /XXX /YYY /ZZZ And I would like this instead: /apps /AAA /libs /XXX The --subdirectory-filter argument to git filter-branch won't work because it gets rid of everything except for the given directory the first time it's run. I thought using the --index-filter argument for all unwanted files would work (albeit tedious), but if I try running it more than once, I get the following message: Cannot create a new backup. A previous backup already exists in refs/original/ Force overwriting the backup with -f Any ideas? TIA

    Read the article

  • git: How to move last N commits made to master, into own branch?

    - by amn
    Hi all, I have a repository where I had been working on master branch having last committed some 10 or so commits which I now wish were in another branch, as they describe work that I now consider experimental (i am still learning good git practices). Basically I would like to have these last 10 commits starting from a point in master to form another branch instead, so that I can have my master in a release state (which is what I strive for.) So, this is what I have (rightmost X is the last commit good for release): b--b (feature B) / X--X--X--Z--Z--Z--Z--Z--Z (master) \ a--a--a (feature A) You can see that both X and Z are on master, while I want commits marked by Z (my feature Z work) to lie on their own feature branch, and so that rightmost X is at the tip of master forming a good master branch tip. I guess this is what I want: b--b (feature B) / X--X--X (master) \ \ \ Z--Z--Z--Z--Z--Z (feature Z - the branch I want Z on) a--a--a (feature A) That way I will have my master always ready for release, and merge A, B and Z features when the time comes. Hope I am making sense here...

    Read the article

  • building a hash lookup table during `git filter-branch` or `git-rebase`

    - by intuited
    I've been using the SHA1 hashes of my commits as references in documentation, etc. I've realized that if I need to rewrite those commits, I'll need to create a lookup table to correspond the hashes for the original repo with the hashes for the filtered repo. Since these are effectively UUID's, a simple lookup table would do. I think that it's relatively straightforward to write a script to do this during a filter-branch run; that's not really my question, though if there are some gotchas that make it complicated, I'd certainly like to hear about them. I'm really wondering if there are any tools that provide this functionality, or if there is some sort of convention on where to keep the lookup table/what to call it? I'd prefer not to do things in a completely idiosyncratic way.

    Read the article

  • how to seamlessly integrate subversion and git?

    - by mattv
    I'm looking for tips on how to seamlessly integrate subversion and git, for deploying web sites by a small team of web developers. We each have our own development versions of our sites on our local machines. We also have dev, staging, and live servers. As our team has grown, we haven't updated our revision control and deployment strategies accordingly. We had all been checking into the trunk of a shared Subversion repository. Both the dev & staging servers ran from a checkout of the trunk, so updating them involved running "svn update" while the live server ran as an export from trunk which required an "svn export" to get the latest code. In either case, we would often update just certain files by updating or exporting just those files or directories. That worked okay when there was just one or two developers. However, a big downside was that we couldn't point to an individual tag that represented what was currently on live at any given time. In keeping with corporate policy, we'd like to continue to use Subversion to store what we're now calling our "production branch," which will be what goes onto staging and live. However, we would like to use Git on our local and development sites. We especially like the idea of easier merges and being able to "cherry pick" updates that need to go live. We had initially planned on using git-svn, but it doesn't seem to work well in a shared environment such as our dev or staging servers. Anyone else doing something like this? What's the best way to make it work? Or are we making it more difficult than it should be?

    Read the article

  • Collaboration using github and testing the code

    - by wyred
    The procedure in my team is that we all commit our code to the same development branch. We have a test server that runs updated code from this branch so that we can test our code on the servers. The problem is that if we want to merge the development branch to the master branch in order to publish new features to our production servers, some features that may not have been ready will be applied to the production servers. So we're considering having each developer work on a feature/topic branch where each of them work on their own features and when it's ready, merge it into the development branch for testing, and then into the master branch. However, because our test server only pulls changes from the development branch, the developers are unable to test their features. While this is not a huge issue as they can test it on their local machine, the only problem I foresee is if we want to test callbacks from third-party services like sendgrid (where you specify a url for sendgrid to update you on the status of emails sent out). How to handle this problem? Note: We're not advanced git users. We use the Github app for MacOSX and Windows to commit our work.

    Read the article

  • Demantra 7.3.1.3 Controlling MDP_MATRIX Combinations Assigned to Forecasting Tasks Using TargetTaskSize

    - by user702295
    New 7.3.1.3 parameter: TargetTaskSize Old parameter: BranchID  Multiple, deprecated  7.3.1.3 onwards Parameter Location: Parameters > System Parameters > Engine > Proport   Default: 0   Engine Mode: Both   Details: Specifies how many MDP_MATRIX combinations the analytical engine attempts to assign to each forecasting task.  Allocation will be affected by forecsat tree branch size.  TaskTargetSize is automcatically calculated.  It holds the perferred branch size, in number of combinations in the lowest level. This parameter is adjusted to a lower value for smaller schemas, depending on the number of available engines.   - As the forecast is generated the engine goes up the tree using max_fore_level and not top_level -1.  Max_fore_level has     to be less than or equal to top_level -1.  Due to this requirement, combinations falling under the same top level -1     member must be in the same task.  A member of the top level -1 of the forecast tree is known as a branch.  An engine     task is therefore comprised of one or more branches.     - Reveal current task size       go to Engine Administrator --> View --> Branch Information and run the application on your Demantra schema.  This will be deprecated in 7.3.1.3 since there is no longer a means of adjusting the brach size directly.  The focus is now on proper hierarchy / forecast design.     - Control of tasks       The number of tasks created is the lowest of number of branches, as defined by top level -1 members in forecast       tree, and engine sessions and the value of TargetTaskSize.  You are used to using the branch multiplier in this       calculation.  As of 7.3.1.3, the branch ID multiple is deprecated.     - Discovery of current branch size       To resolve this you must review the 2nd highest level in the forecast tree (below highest/highest) as this is the       level which determines the size of the branches.  If a few resulting tasks are too large it is recommended that       the forecast tree level driving branches be revised or at times completely removed from the forecast tree.     - Control of foreacast tree branch size         - Run the following sql to determine how even the branches are being split by the engine:             select count(*),branch_id from mdp_matrix where prediction_status = 1 and do_fore = 1 group by branch_id;             This will give you an understanding if some of the individual branches have an unusually large number of           rows and thus might indicate that the engine is not efficiently dividing up the parallel tasks.         - Based on the results of this sql, we may want to adjust the branch id multiplier and/or the number of engines           (both of these settings are found in the Engine Administrator)           select count(*), level_id from mdp_matrix where prediction_status = 1 and do_fore = 1 group by level_id;           This will give us an understanding at which level of the Forecast tree where the forecast is being generated.            Having a majority of combinations higher on the forecast tree might indicate either a poorly designed forecast           tree and/or engine parameters that are too strict           Based on the results of this we would adjust the Forecast Tree to see if choosing a different hierarchy might           produce a forecast, with more combinations, at a lower level.           For example:             - Review the 2nd highest level in the forecast tree, below highest/highest, as this is the level which               determines the size of the branches.             - If a few resulting tasks are too large it is recommended that the forecast tree level driving branches               be revised or at times completely removed from the forecast tree.               - For example, if the highest level of the forecast tree is set to Brand/All Locations.             - You have 10 brands but 2 of the brands account for 67% and 29% of all combinations.             - There is a distinct possibility that the tasks resulting from these 2 branches will be too large for               a single engine to process.  Some possible solutions could be to remove the Brand level and instead               use a different product grouping which has a more even distribution, possibly Product Group.               - It is also possible to add a location dimension to this forecast tree level, for example Customer.                This will also reduce forecast tree branch size and will deliver a balanced task allocation.             - A correctly configured Forecast Tree is something that is done by the Implementation team and is               not the responsibility of Oracle Support.  Allocation will be affected by forecast tree branch size.  When TargetTaskSize is set to 0, the default value, the system automatically calculates a value for 'TargetTaskSize' depending on the number of engines.   - QUESTION:  Does this mean that if TargetTaskSize is 1, we use tree branch size to allocate branches to tasks instead                of automatically calculating the size?     ANSWER: DEV Strongly recommends that the setting of TargetTaskSize remain at the DEFAULT of ZERO (0).   - How to control the number of engines?     Determine how many CPUs are on the machine(s) that is (are) running the engine.  As mentioned earlier, the general     rule is that you should designate 2 engines per each CPU that is available.  So for example, if you are running the     engine on a machine that has 4 CPU then you can have up to 8 engines designated in the Engine Administrator.  In this     type of architecture then instead of having one 'localhost' in your Engine Settings Screen, you would have 'localhost'     repeated eight times in this field.     Where do I set the number of engines?                 To add multiples computers where engine will run, please do a back-up of Settings.xml file under         Analytical Engines\bin\ folder, then edit it and add there the selected machines.                 Example, this will allow 3 engines to start:         - <Entry>           <Key argument="ComputerNames" />           <Value type="string" argument="localhost,localhost,localhost" />           </Entry Otherwise, if there are no additional engines defined, the calculated value of 'TargetTaskSize' is used. (Oracle does not recommend changing the default value.) The TargetTaskSize holds the engines prefered branch size, in number of level 1 combinations.   - Level 1 combinations, known as group size The engine manager will use this parameter to attempt creating branches with similar size.   * The engine manager will not create engines that do not have a branch. The engine divider algorithm uses the value of 'TargetTaskSize' as a system-preferred branch size to create branches that are more equal in size which improves engine performance.  The engine divider will try to add as many tasks as possible to an existing branch, up to the limit of 'TargetTaskSize' level 1 combinations, before adding new branches. Coming up next: - The engine divider - Group size - Level 1 combinations - MAX_FORE_LEVEL - Engine Parameters  

    Read the article

  • Git repo: Unravelling my mess into tidy branches

    - by Martin
    I wanted to play with a project, so git cloned it and, following its instructions, created a local branch for my configuration (I guess so that users can merge updates back). At first I was just tweaking to suit my preferences, so I didn't bother with any further branching, but now I have some code that might be useful to someone else, but with my passwords, etc in the same branch. Effectively, I have one big branch from which I'd like to have: Postgres backend (default) but with some new code I've added MySQL backend (the biggest change I've made) with that same new code My settings: I can't git ignore the settings file because I occasionally have to add sections for new functionality, but I need to keep my personal settings out of the public branches! I guess this would work best as a local-only branch. Dev branches, which I would branch from the MySQL. Starting from scratch, I think I could figure out how to branch/merge the various updates, but is there an easy way to walk through the existing repo and choose which commits to apply to which branch? Or possibly create a branch from a point upstream then merge back, excluding certain commits?

    Read the article

  • subversion merge back to trunk

    - by Berryl
    I set up a branch several weeks ago. When some changes were made to the trunk, SVN was committing to the branch, and not the trunk. The changes were minor and applicable to the branch anyway, so I assumed this is how the branch should work. Now that the branch work is finished, I merged back the branch back to my working trunk, assuming SVN would replace the old trunk with the new branch in the repository as well. That is not the case though. My repository trunk is out of date. I would like to make the repository trunk be same as the branch and then delete the branch. How can I do this? Cheers, Berryl Note: I am using tortoise / visualvsn client.

    Read the article

  • How to force rebase when same changes applied to both branches manually?

    - by Dmitry
    My repository looks like: X - Y- A - B - C - D - E branch:master \ \ \ \ merge master -> release \ \ M --- BCDE --- N branch:release Here "M - BCDE - N" are manually (unfortunately!) applied changes approximately same as separate commits "A - B - C - D - E" (but seems GIT does not know that these changes are the same). I'd like to rebase and get the following structure: X - Y- A - B - C - D - E branch:master \ * branch:release I.e. I want to make branch:release to be exactly the same as branch:master and fork it from the master's HEAD. But when I run "git rebase master" sitting at the branch release, GIT reports about lots of conflicts and refuces rebasing. How could I solve this? Other explaination of this: I'd like to "re-create" branch:release from scratch from master's HEAD. And there are a lot of other people who had already made "git pull" for the branch:release, so I cannot use git reset + git push -f.

    Read the article

  • Git Subtree. Why can't I branch from a subtree rather than the root?

    - by dugla
    I am struggling trying to make sense of using the Git subtree strategy. My intent was to pull some disparate repos together into a little family of toy repos under an umbrella repo. I'm using the subtree strategy detailed here: http://help.github.com/subtree-merge I am pulling my hair out trying to convince Git that I want to create a branch from one of these subtrees NOT from the root. When I cd into a subtree, create the branch, and then cd back to the root, running git branch from the root clearly indicates the branch was created at the root. Sigh. I love git/github but it is maddening getting this seemingly routine task to work properly. Could someone please enlighten me?

    Read the article

  • SVN: Release branch headaches, how to merge in website revisions as and when cleared to go live?

    - by Pete Duncanson
    I need a sanity check here if we can, any ideas on correcting/changing the following are very welcome! We've been getting ourselves in knots of late with our SVN and are trying to correct it by putting a Trunk/Release system in place. We have a large website that we develop on and we store it all in SVN. Heres what we had in mind: We have trunk and a release branch All work gets checked into Trunk. When a feature is deemed ready for the next release it is merged into a Release branch. We only have one release branch and just tag "Latest" when we do a push to live We hope to be able to get all the files changed from Latest to Head to give us a zip that we can upload (any ideas on an easy way to do this via scripting?) So we set all this up and where very happy with ourselves. Except its not working and heres why. We work on lots a different features/fixes/problems at once and they don't all get nicely checked in feature complete (but always working at least). Then sometimes you have to wait for Clients to sign off. As a result you end up with revisions which are "ready for live" being scattered with ones which are "still being worked on" in trunk. That means that the completed revisions are not getting merged in sequentially but out of order. I thought SVN could handle this, clever little thing it is, but apparently not. Heres an example: Pete changes some CSS to make a new button look pretty (Revision 1) Dave add some CSS to the bottom of the same CSS file as Pete's for a new feature (Revision 2) Dave's mod gets the nod so he merges it into Release and commits it with a log message mentioning revision number and bug tracking id. Pete adds more buttons to finish this mod, no CSS changes here though (Revision 3) Pete then merges his mods (Revision 1 and 3) into the Head of Release (which has Daves merge in it) but this over-writes Daves CSS additions which now dissapear completely. This leads to the site being broken and the Release branch being pretty much useless. So we tried some other ideas like reverting Release back to "Latest" and then just merging in all the Revisions 1,2 and 3 in order. This worked fine until we had Revision 4 which was not ready for live and Revision 5 which was. Suddenly we are getting ourselves in knots again with exactly the same problem! Ok so take three. Revert to Latest, merge in Revision 5, then do any update back to Head. Tree conflicts galore! So thats a no no. I cracked in the end and built it all up manaually but its not something I want to do regular, ideally I want to script our deployment but can't while Release is in such a mess. HELP! What the heck are we doing wrong? I can't seem to find any solutions to this problem of wanting different none sequential Revisions in Release. If its not possible thats fine but how the heck are we meant to get stuff live easily. We can't branch for every single change, the site takes 30 minutes+ to check out it would take too long. Side note, we are using TortoiseSVN so can we keep command line examples to a minimum in any answers? Latest version of TSVN and SVN Version 1.6 so we have the funky merge tracking etc. EDIT: An excellent blog post which deals with the dev/release cycle (although using GIT but still relivant) thought everyone would like to read it if they found this question interesting. (http://nvie.com/git-model) EDIT 2: I wrote a blog post on how to show which branch you are working on in your website which others have asked me about (http://www.offroadcode.com/2010/5/14/which-svn-branch-are-you-working-on.aspx). Hope that helps. In the meantime we are looking at Kiln and hoping to make the switch next month (gulp!)

    Read the article

  • When making a branch in TortoiseSVN, what do "head", "working copy", and "specific" revisions mean?

    - by Asad Butt
    A new user of Tortoise SVN, working over source control. I have a Visual Studio solution which consists of 5 webAppliation projects. I need to take one out and work over it in a branch. When I try to branch it, It is asking me of one of these options head revision in repository specific revision in repository working copy revision Problem 1: What exactly are these ? I am confused with "head revision" and "working copy", as they appear same to me. EDIT: Problem 2: Why cant we branch from Repository GUI itself, (would be head revision) ? Problem 3: Can you list the steps, needed to branch from a directory !

    Read the article

  • Can Hudson branch promotion get based on project stability?

    - by Wayne
    Hudson CI server displays stability "weather" which is cool. And it allows one project build to kick off based on the successful build of another. However, how can you make that secondary project dependent additionally on the stability of multiple builds of the first project? Specifically, project "stable_deploy" needs to only kick off to promote a version to "stable" if project "integrate" with version 8.3.4.1233 has built and tested successfully at least 8 times--in a row. Until then, it's still in integration mode. IMPORTANT: A significant caveat to this is that a single set of Hudson projects gets used as a "pipeline" to process each new version through to release. So a project may have built successfully 8 times in a rolw but the latest version 8.3.4.1233 may be only the 2 most recent builds. The builds prior to that may be an earlier version. We're open to completely reorganizing this but the pipeline idea seemed to greatly reduce the amount of manually project creation and deletion. Is there a better way to track version release "pipeline"? In particular, we will have multiple versions in this pipeline simultaneously in the future due to fixes or patches to older versions. We don't see how to do that yet, except to create new pipeline projects for each version which is a real hassle. Here's some background details: The TickZoom application has some very complete unit tests some of which simulates real time trading environments. Add to that TickZoom makes elaborate use of parallelization for leveraging multi-core computers. Needless to say, during development of a new version, there can be stability issues during integration testing which get uncovered by running the build and auto tests repeatedly. A version which builds and tests cleanly 8 times in a row without change plus has undergone some real world testing by users can be deemed "stable" and promoted to the stable branch. Our Hudson projects look like this: test - Only for testing a build, zero user visibility. integrate_deploy - Promotes a test project build to integrate branch and makes it available to public for UA testing. integrate - Repeatedly builds the integrate branch to determine if it's stable enough to promote to stable branch. This runs the builds and test hourly throughout every night. stable_deploy - Promotes an integrate project build to the stable branch and makes it public for users who want the latest and greatest. stable - Builds the stable branch once every night. After 2 weeks of successful builds (14 builds) it can go to "release candidate". And so on... it continues with "release candidate" and then "release".

    Read the article

  • How do I branch an individual file in SVN?

    - by Michael Carman
    The subversion concept of branching appears to be focused on creating an [un]stable fork of the entire repository on which to do development. Is there a mechanism for creating branches of individual files? For a use case, think of a common header (*.h) file that has multiple platform-specific source (*.c) implementations. This type of branch is a permanent one. All of these branches would see ongoing development with occasional cross-branch merging. This is in sharp contrast to unstable development/stable release branches which generally have a finite lifespan. I do not want to branch the entire repository (cheap or not) as it would create an unreasonable amount of maintenance to continuously merge between the trunk and all the branches. At present I'm using ClearCase, which has a different concept of branching that makes this easy. I've been asked to consider transitioning to SVN but this paradigm difference is important. I'm much more concerned about being able to easily create alternate versions for individual files than about things like cutting a stable release branch.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >