Search Results

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

Page 29/1195 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • How can I best manage making open source code releases from my company's confidential research code?

    - by DeveloperDon
    My company (let's call them Acme Technology) has a library of approximately one thousand source files that originally came from its Acme Labs research group, incubated in a development group for a couple years, and has more recently been provided to a handful of customers under non-disclosure. Acme is getting ready to release perhaps 75% of the code to the open source community. The other 25% would be released later, but for now, is either not ready for customer use or contains code related to future innovations they need to keep out of the hands of competitors. The code is presently formatted with #ifdefs that permit the same code base to work with the pre-production platforms that will be available to university researchers and a much wider range of commercial customers once it goes to open source, while at the same time being available for experimentation and prototyping and forward compatibility testing with the future platform. Keeping a single code base is considered essential for the economics (and sanity) of my group who would have a tough time maintaining two copies in parallel. Files in our current base look something like this: > // Copyright 2012 (C) Acme Technology, All Rights Reserved. > // Very large, often varied and restrictive copyright license in English and French, > // sometimes also embedded in make files and shell scripts with varied > // comment styles. > > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > #ifdef UNDER_RESEARCH > holographicVisualization(on); > #endif > } And we would like to convert them to something like: > // GPL Copyright (C) Acme Technology Labs 2012, Some rights reserved. > // Acme appreciates your interest in its technology, please contact [email protected] > // for technical support, and www.acme.com/emergingTech for updates and RSS feed. > > ... Usual header stuff... > > void initTechnologyLibrary() { > nuiInterface(on); > } Is there a tool, parse library, or popular script that can replace the copyright and strip out not just #ifdefs, but variations like #if defined(UNDER_RESEARCH), etc.? The code is presently in Git and would likely be hosted somewhere that uses Git. Would there be a way to safely link repositories together so we can efficiently reintegrate our improvements with the open source versions? Advice about other pitfalls is welcome.

    Read the article

  • When to delete a branch in Git

    - by Jo-Herman Haugholt
    I have a script project I've been managing with Git. Besides two main branches, several minor branches have been introduced over time to cover minor features, tweaks or temporary changes. Some of these branches are nearing end-of-life, and I won't be updating them any more. What's the different philosophies for handling branches like this? Should they be removed, or left in the repository unmaintained? If I do, won't I end up with a cluttered repository?

    Read the article

  • HG: fork web app project to separate API code from app code

    - by cs_brandt
    I have a web app thats been in active development for about 8 months now and its becoming apparent that the project has a need to maintain a separation between app specific code and our OO Javascript API. What I would like to do is have another repository with the following general structure of the js API code. repo_name | +---build | +---build_tools | +---doc | +---src | +---js Of course this structure is different from the original web app directory structure. If I make changes to this new repository how could I pull in those changes to the web app repository without unintentionally removing files or modifying the directory structure of the web app repository?

    Read the article

  • Combining Code Review with Trust Metrics

    - by DragonFax
    I don't get the chance to partake of it at work. But I love the idea of code review. Especially of online open source code review like Gerrit Code Review. I love what Trust Metrics have done for forums and collective intelligences sites on the internet like stackexchange, reddit, and wikipedia. Would it be possible to combine the two and come up with an open source project management system. Something that ends up being mostly community driven. Perhaps a kind of wikipedia of code for a project. Where submitters become popular/trusted by having lots of patches reviewed favoriably by others, and accepted into the trunk. And popular/trusted submitters get their patchs accepted faster/easier. I'm looking for some opinions on the idea, or perhaps pointers to where its been done before, if thats the case. This might leave the lead maintiner little more to do than: wrangle the direction of the project by fast-tracking or vetoing specific patches. settling disputes when the CI tests break, or fixing it himself. Is design by community worse than design by committee?

    Read the article

  • How do I structure code and builds for continuous delivery of multiple applications in a small team?

    - by kingdango
    Background: 3-5 developers supporting (and building new) internal applications for a non-software company. We use TFS although I don't think that matters much for my question. I want to be able to develop a deployment pipeline and adopt continuous integration / deployment techniques. Here's what our source tree looks like right now. We use a single TFS Team Project. $/MAIN/src/ $/MAIN/src/ApplicationA/VSSOlution.sln $/MAIN/src/ApplicationA/ApplicationAProject1.csproj $/MAIN/src/ApplicationA/ApplicationAProject2.csproj $/MAIN/src/ApplicationB/... $/MAIN/src/ApplicationC $/MAIN/src/SharedInfrastructureA $/MAIN/src/SharedInfrastructureB My Goal (a pretty typical promotion pipeline) When a code change is made to a given application I want to be able to build that application and auto-deploy that change to a DEV server. I may also need to build dependencies on Shared Infrastructure Components. I often also have some database scripts or changes as well If developer testing passes I want to have an manually triggered but automated deploy of that build on a STAGING server where end-users will review new functionality. Once it's approved by end users I want to a manually triggered auto-deploy to production Question: How can I best adopt continuous deployment techniques in a multi-application environment? A lot of the advice I see is more single-application-specific, how is that best applied to multiple applications? For step 1, do I simply setup a separate Team Build for each application? What's the best approach to accomplishing steps 2 and 3 of promoting latest build to new environments? I've seen this work well with web apps but what about database changes

    Read the article

  • Why are tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn useful? [closed]

    - by Wes
    I have read these related questions: I'm a Subversion geek, why should I consider or not consider Mercurial or Git or any other DVCS? git for personal (one-man) projects. Overkill? ...and I understand why git is useful. What I don't understand is why tools like git-svn that allow git to integrate with svn are useful. When, for example, a team is working with svn, or any other centralised SCM, why would a member of the team opt to use git-svn? Are there any practical advantages for a developer that has to synchronize with a centralized repository?

    Read the article

  • Git workflow for small teams

    - by janos
    I'm working on a git workflow to implement in a small team. The core ideas in the workflow: there is a shared project master that all team members can write to all development is done exclusively on feature branches feature branches are code reviewed by a team member other than the branch author the feature branch is eventually merged into the shared master and the cycle starts again The article explains the steps in this cycle in detail: https://github.com/janosgyerik/git-workflows-book/blob/small-team-workflow/chapter05.md Does this make sense or am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • How and where do you store your private work/source codes?

    - by Amir Rezaei
    I have worked as developer for over 10 years now. Over the time I have had my own small projects where I have developed tool/application and games. I have not found any robust solution to store my work. It’s always fun to get back to your code and see how you did before and how you would do it now. It’s just a work that is unfortunate to get lost. There are SVN solution such as Google’s Project Hosting. However I’m not interested in sharing my code or making it open source. Currently I’m hosting my own SVN server. So here comes my question. How and where do you store your private work/source codes? Requirements: Source code versioning Backup Prefers free

    Read the article

  • Resources for using TFS for Agile Project Development?

    - by Amy P
    Our company just installed TFS for us to start using for project development processes and source control. They want us to start using it to manage our projects as well. We have a small team, no current bug or task tracking software, and 2 developers of the 3 have experience with any actual methodologies. What books, websites, and/or other information can you recommend for us to use to get started?

    Read the article

  • Is reference to bug/issue in commit message considered good practice?

    - by Christian P
    I'm working on a project where we have the source control set up to automatically write notes in the bug tracker. We simply write the bug issue ID in the commit message and the commit message is added as a note to the bug tracker. I can see only a few downsides for this practice. If sometime in the future the source code gets separated from the bug tracking software (or the reported bugs/issues are somehow lost). Or when someone is looking in the history of commits but doesn't have access to our bug tracker. My question is if having a bug/issue reference in the commit message is considered good practice? Are there some other downsides?

    Read the article

  • Why fork a library for your own application?

    - by Mr. Shickadance
    Why should a programmer ever fork a library for inclusion in a widely used application? I ask this question because I was reading an article about why Chromium isn't packaged for many Linux distros like Fedora. Apparently its largely due to the fact that Google has forked a number of libraries, modified them, and included them in Chromium. This has driven up the complexity of packaging releases. There are a number of reasons why this can be a bad thing, but how strong a case can you actually make for doing so in a large widely used application such as Chromium? The original article: http://ostatic.com/blog/making-projects-easier-to-package-why-chromium-isnt-in-fedora Isn't it usually worth the effort to make slight modifications to your own program in order to use a popular and well developed library?

    Read the article

  • Convincing my coworkers to use Hudson CI

    - by in0de
    Im really aware of some benefits of using Hudson as CI server. But, im facing the problem to convince my coworkers to install and use it. To put some context, we are developing two different products (one is an enterprise search engine based on Apache Solr) and several enterprise search projects. We are facing a lot of versioning issues and i think Hudson will solve this problems. They argued about its productivity and learning curve What Hudson's benefits would you spotlight?

    Read the article

  • Should Git be used for documentation and project management? Should the code be in a separate repository?

    - by EmpireJones
    I'm starting up a Git repository for a group project. Does it make sense to store documents in the same Git repository as code - it seems like this conflicts with the nature of the git revision flow. Here is a summary of my question(s): Is the Git revisioning style going to be confusing if both code and documents are checked into the same repository? Experiences with this? Is Git a good fit for documentation revision control? I am NOT asking if a Revision Control System in general should or shouldn't be used for documentation - it should. Thanks for the feedback so far!

    Read the article

  • From TFS to Git

    - by Saeed Neamati
    I'm a .NET developer and I've used TFS (team foundation server) as my source control software many times. Good features of TFS are: Good integration with Visual Studio (so I do almost everything visually; no console commands) Easy check-out, check-in process Easy merging and conflict resolution Easy automated builds Branching Now, I want to use Git as the backbone, repository, and source control of my open source projects. My projects are in C#, JavaScript, or PHP language with MySQL, or SQL Server databases as the storage mechanism. I just used github.com's help for this purpose and I created a profile there, and downloaded a GUI for Git. Up to this part was so easy. But I'm almost stuck at going along any further. I just want to do some simple (really simple) operations, including: Creating a project on Git and mapping it to a folder on my laptop Checking out/checking in files and folders Resolving conflicts That's all I need to do now. But it seems that the GUI is not that user friendly. I expect the GUI to have a Connect To... or something like that, and then I expect a list of projects to be shown, and when I choose one, I expect to see the list of files and folders of that project, just like exploring your TFS project in Visual Studio. Then I want to be able to right click a file and select check-in... or check-out and stuff like that. Do I expect much? What should I do to easily use Git just like TFS? What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Are Remote commit hooks in subversion possible?

    - by John Hamelink
    Hi there, my current setup is as follows: We have a Linux samba share that contains all the repository folders (with the hooks folder inside, amongst the others) All the developers have the share mapped as a network drive, and import to a local directory (normally C:\Server\RepositoryName) where they work on their files. All the machines accessing the drive (unfortunately) run windows. What I'm aiming to do is to have a hook on the Linux server that detects when a commit has been made, by which project, the revision number, the name of the developer who committed, etc. I looked into the hooks files, but they seem to be ran by the client. Is there a way to monitor svn changes and collect the relevant information from the Linux server?

    Read the article

  • Keeping up with upstream changes while adding small fixes or even major changes

    - by neo
    Often I need to apply some small fixes (to make them run on my environment) or even change some parts of the software (to tailor it to my needs) to software from outside. However this obviously creates problem with updating said software, even when it changes nothing related to my fix. It would be easier when the software provided integration for some kind of plugins but more often than not it doesn't. What would be an ideal workflow regarding that? Most of the projects are git repos I pulled from outside. How should I apply my changes so that I can update painlessly? You can assume that external changes are much more often and larger than my own ones, so reviewing each one of them won't be a solution.

    Read the article

  • Confusion about git; how to undo?

    - by dan
    I wanted to install some source code that was on git. Don't really know what that means, I've never used git before, but I figured it was time to learn so, I first installed git. Next I tried to clone the git directory of the software I want to install. I got a message saying "the authenticity of can't be established". I went ahead and ended up with another message saying warning such and such will be added to known hosts. I went ahead and it said something about hanging up on the connection. After searching the internet for a while I realized I didn't need git to install the software but now I have it installed and have added some host to some file or another. I'm concerned I've created some security issues I need to fix. Can anyone help me undo what I've done, or better understand what I've done. Did adding a git project open up my system? Beyond that can anyone tell me how git works. Everything I've found assumes I know stuff that I don't yet. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Should I expect my team to have more than a basic proficiency with our source control system?

    - by Joshua Smith
    My company switched from Subversion to Git about three months ago. We had weeks of advance notice prior to the switch. Since I'd never used Git before (or any other DVCS), I read Pro Git and spent a little time spinning up my own repositories and playing around, so that when we switched I'd be able to keep working with minimal pain. Now I'm the 'Git guy' by default. With a couple of exceptions, most of my team still has no idea how Git works. For example, they still think of branches as complete copies of the source code, and even go so far as to clone the repo into multiple folders (one per branch). They generally look at Git as a scary black box. Given the fundamental nature of source control in our daily work (not to mention the ridiculous amount of power Git affords us), I'm of the opinion that any dev who doesn't achieve a certain level of proficiency with it is a liability. Should I expect my team to have at least some understanding of how Git works internally, and how to use it beyond the most basic pull/merge/push operations? Or am I just making something out of nothing?

    Read the article

  • After upgrading to 12.10 usb drives fail to mount

    - by John Shore
    Following upgrade to 12.10, my usb drives - both pen drives and a usb hard drive - fail to mount with the error message: Unable to mount *name of drive* volume Adding read ACL for uid 1000 to '/media/*my home file name*' failed: Operation not supported This is on a desktop Dell Inspiron 530. I also have a Dell Inspiron Mini 10 netbook which I also upgraded to 12.10 (slightly smaller installation on a flash hard drive). all devices mount automatically without problems on this computer.

    Read the article

  • Library and several small programs that use it: how should I structure my git repository?

    - by Dan
    I have some code that uses a library that I and others frequently modify (usually only by adding functions and methods). We each keep a local fork of the library for our own use. I also have a lot of small "driver" programs (~100 lines) that use the library and are used exclusively by me. Currently, I have both the driver programs and the library in the same repository, because I frequently make changes to both that are logically connected (adding a function to the library and then calling it). I'd like to merge my fork of the library with my co-workers' forks, but I don't want the driver programs to be part of the merged library. What's the best way to organize the git repositories for a large, shared library that needs to be merged frequently and a number of small programs that have changes that are connected to changes in the library?

    Read the article

  • How do you avoid working on the wrong branch?

    - by henginy
    Being careful is usually enough to prevent problems, but sometimes I need to double check the branch I'm working on (e.g. "hmm... I'm in the dev branch, right?") by checking the source control path of a random file. In looking for an easier way, I thought of naming the solution files accordingly (e.g. MySolution_Dev.sln) but with different file names in each branch, I can't merge the solution files. It's not that big of a deal but are there any methods or "small tricks" you use to quickly ensure you're in the correct branch? I'm using Visual Studio 2010 with TFS 2008.

    Read the article

  • How do you structure your shared code so that it is "re-findable" for new developers?

    - by awmckinley
    I started working at my current job about 8 months ago, and its been one of the best experiences I've had as a young programmer. It's a small company, and both my co-developers are brilliant guys. One of the practices that they both have been encouraging is lots of code-reuse. Our code base is mainly C#, and we're using a centralized revision control system. The way the repository is currently structured, there is a single folder in which all shared class libraries are placed (along with unit tests for each library), and our revision control system allows for sharing or linking those libraries out to other projects. What I'm trying to understand at this point is how the current structure of the folder can be made more conducive for finding those libraries again. I've talked to the other developers about this, and they agree that it's gotten a little messy. I find that I am sometimes "reinventing the wheel" because I didn't realize that there was an existing piece of code that solved a particular problem. The issue is complicated further by the fact that we're sharing some code between ASP.NET MVC2, WinForms, and Windows CE projects, and sharing code between applications built against multiple versions of .NET. How do other people approach this? Is the answer in naming the libraries in a certain way or is it preferable to invest in some code-search software? Is the answer in doc comments? Should we be sharing libraries at all or should we simply branch the class libraries for re-use? Thanks for any and all help!

    Read the article

  • Using Mercurial repository inside a Git one: Feasible? Sane?

    - by Portablejim
    I am thinking on creating a Mercurial repository under a Git repository. e.g. ..../git-repository/directory/hg-repo/ The 2 repositories Is it possible to manage (keeping your sanity)? How similiar is it to this? I am a computer science student at University. I manage my work in Git, mainly as a distribution mechanism (after realizing that rsync fails when you have changes in more than one place) between my desktop and usb drive. I try use of Git as a VCS as I do work. I have finished a semester where I did a small group project to prepare for a larger group project next year. We had to use Subversion, and experienced the joys of a centralised VCS (including downtime). I tried to keep the subversion repository separate to my Git repository for the subject**, however it was annoying that it was seperate (not in the place where I store assignments). I therefore moved to using an Subversion repository inside my Git repository. As I think ahead (maybe I am thinking too far ahead) I realise that I will have to try and convince people to use a DVCS and Mercurial will probably be the one that is preferred (Windows and Mac GUI support, closer to Subversion). Having done some research into the whole Git vs Mercurial debate (however not used Mercurial at all) I still prefer Git. Can I have a Mercurial repository inside a Git one without going mad (or it ruining something)? Or is it something that I should not consider at all? (Or is it a bad question that should be deleted?) ** I think outside of Australia it is called a course

    Read the article

  • How to refactor when all your development is on branches?

    - by Mark
    At my company, all of our development (bug fixes and new features) is done on separate branches. When it's complete, we send it off to QA who tests it on that branch, and when they give us the green light, we merge it into our main branch. This could take anywhere between a day and a year. If we try to squeeze any refactoring in on a branch, we don't know how long it will be "out" for, so it can cause many conflicts when it's merged back in. For example, let's say I want to rename a function because the feature I'm working on is making heavy use of this function, and I found that it's name doesn't really fit its purpose (again, this is just an example). So I go around and find every usage of this function, and rename them all to its new name, and everything works perfectly, so I send it off to QA. Meanwhile, new development is happening, and my renamed function doesn't exist on any of the branches that are being forked off main. When my issue gets merged back in, they're all going to break. Is there any way of dealing with this? It's not like management will ever approve a refactor-only issue so it has to be squeezed in with other work. It can't be developed directly on main because all changes have to go through QA and no one wants to be the jerk that broke main so that he could do a little bit of non-essential refactoring.

    Read the article

  • Maintaining a main project line with satellite projects

    - by NickLarsen
    Some projects I work on have a main line of features, but are customizable per customer. Up until now those customizations have been implemented as preferences, but now there are 2 problems with the system... The settings page is getting out of control with features. There are probably some improvements that could be made to the settings UI, but regardless, it is quite cumbersome setting up new instances for new customers. Customers have started asking for customizations which would be more easily maintained as separate threads instead of having tons of customizations code. Optimally I am envisioning some kind of source control in which features are either in the main project line and customizations per customer are maintained in a repo per customer set up. The customizations per project would need to remain separate but if a bug is found and fixed in a particular project, I would need to percolate the fix back to the main line and into all of the other customer repos. The problem is I have never seen this done before, and before spending time trying to find source control that can accommodate this scenario and implement it, I figure it best to ask if anyone has something less complicated or knows of a source control product which can handle this with very little hair pulling.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >