Search Results

Search found 179 results on 8 pages for 'dvcs'.

Page 3/8 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >

  • Release management with a distributed version control system

    - by See Sharp Cheddar
    We're considering a switch from SVN to a distributed VCS at my workplace. I'm familiar with all the reasons for wanting to using a DVCS for day-to-day development: local version control, easier branching and merging, etc., but I haven't seen that much that's compelling in terms of managing software releases. Here's our release process: Discover what changes are available for merging. Run a query to find the defects/tickets associated with these changes. Filter out changes associated with "open" tickets. In our environment, tickets must be in a closed state in order to merged with a release branch. Filter out changes we don't want in the release branch. We are very conservative when it comes to merging changes. If a change isn't absolutely necessary, it doesn't get merged. Merge available changes, preferably in chronological order. We group changes together if they're associated with the same ticket. Block unwanted changes from the release branch (svnmerge block) so we don't have to deal with them again. Sometimes we can be juggling 3-5 different milestones at a time. Some milestones have very different constraints, and the block list can get quite long. I've been messing around with git, mercurial and plastic, and as far as I can tell none of them address this model very well. It seems like they would work very well when you have only one product you're releasing, but I can't imagine using them for juggling multiple, very different products from the same codebase. For example, cherry-picking seems to be an afterthought in mercurial. (You have to use the 'transplant' command). After you cherry-pick a change into a branch it still shows up as an available integration. Cherry-picking breaks the mercurial way of working. DVCS seems to be better suited for feature branches. There's no need for cherry-picking if you merge directly from a feature branch to trunk and the release branch. But who wants to do all that merging all the time? And how do you query for what's available to merge? And how do you make sure all the changes in a feature branch belong together? It sounds like total chaos. I'm torn because the coder in me wants DVCS for day-to-day work. I really want it. But I fear the day when I have to put the release manager hat and sort out what needs to be merged and what doesn't. I want to write code, I don't want to be a merge monkey.

    Read the article

  • Looking for a wiki-style, standalone, version-control-"safe" documenation package

    - by basszero
    This may sound like it's not a programming related question, but stick with me here... My team and I have found that documenting our project (a development platform w/ API) with a wiki is both useful to us and useful to the users. Due to some organizational issues, we're forced to do multi-site development without network connectivity. We've switched to a DVCS (Mercurial) and had great success with this. The wiki documentation proves to be a problem as the central site is setup with MediaWiki. The offsite people have no way to access or edit the wiki. Is there any sort of wiki-style package which doesn't not require a server/database and will be useable in a DVCS environment? Update: Should be open-source and cross-platform

    Read the article

  • How to safeguard my code

    - by ram
    I had posted my question in the below link on how to protect my code using Hg http://stackoverflow.com/questions/173875/how-do-you-protect-code-from-leaking-outside The question is: In a DVCS scenario how can we restrict the code leakages? Is there any way technically to restrict this like when I move our of my work automatically history of codes should not be viewed?

    Read the article

  • Git versus Mercurial for .NET developers?

    - by jwanagel
    I've been wondering what is the better DVCS for .NET developers? From reading various information it has sounded like Mercurial works better on Windows, but other information claims that Git has caught up and surpassed Mercurial in offering quality Windows and Visual Studio tools. Does anyone have good recent information or experience with trying both in a .NET development environment?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good idea to keep documentation in the VCS?

    - by Jj
    At work we just moved to Mercurial for our VCS from SVN. In SVN we used to have a "docs" folder next to "trunk", in "docs" we would keep all our file documentation, client files, diagrams, mockups, etc. (we use a wiki(Redmine) for internal documentation). Now in a DVCS enviroment we don't need a "trunk" folder, so we drop the code at the root of the repo, and now having a "docs" folder inside the repo feels weird being at the same level that the code. This has taken me to reconsider if it is a good idea to keep those files in the VCS, we have a "documents" section in Redmine, but I have never used it because it is a pain to have to download a file each time I want to open it and I can't access the file when I'm offline. What best practices have you guys found to manage these kind of non-code files?

    Read the article

  • Copying a directory that is version controlled

    - by ibz
    I am curious whether it is OK to copy a directory that is under version control and start working on both copies. I know it can be different from one VCS to another, but I intentionally don't specify any VCS since I am curious about different cases. I was talking to a coworker recently about doing it in SVN. I think it should be OK, but I am still not 100% sure, since I don't know what exactly SVN is storing in the working copy. However, if we talk about the DVCS world, things might be even more unclear, since every working copy is a repository by itself. Being faced with doing this in bzr now, I decided to ask the question. Later edit: Some people asked why I would want to do that. Here is the whole story: In the case of SVN it was because being out of the office, the connection to the SVN server was really slow, so me and my coworker decided to check out the sources only once and make a local copy. That's what we did and it worked OK, but I am still wondering whether it is guaranteed to work, or it just happened. In the bzr case, I am planning to move the "main" repo to another server. So I was thinking to just copy it there and start considering that the main repo. I guess the safest is to make a clone though.

    Read the article

  • Sell me Distributed revision control

    - by ring bearer
    I know 1000s of similar topics floating around. I read at lest 5 threads here in SO But why am I still not convinced about DVCS? I have only following questions (note that I am selfishly worried only about Java projects) What is the advantage or value of committing locally? What? really? All modern IDEs allows you to keep track of your changes? and if required you can restore a particular change. Also, they have a feature to label your changes/versions at IDE level!? what if I crash my hard drive? where did my local repository go? (so how is it cool compared to checking in to a central repo?) Working offline or in an air plane. What is the big deal?In order for me to build a release with my changes, I must eventually connect to the central repository. Till then it does not matter how I track my changes locally. Ok Linus Torvalds gives his life to Git and hates everything else. Is that enough to blindly sing praises? Linus lives in a different world compared to offshore developers in my mid-sized project? Pitch me!

    Read the article

  • How to push a new feature to a central Mercurial repo?

    - by Sly
    I'm assigned the development of a feature for a project. I'm going to work on that feature for several days over a period of a few weeks. I'll clone the central repo. Then I'm going to work locally for 3 weeks. I'll commit my progress to my repo several times during that process. When I'm done, I'm going to pull/merge/commit before I push. What is the right way push my feature as a single changeset to the central repo? I don't want to push 14 "work in progress" changesets and 1 "merged" changeset to the central repo. I want other collaborators on the project to see only one changeset with a significant commit message (such as "Implemented feature ABC"). I'm new to Mercurial and DVCS so don't hesitate to provide guidance if you think I'm not approaching that the right way. <My own answer> So far I came up with a way of reducing 15 changeset to 2 changeset. Suppose changesets 10 to 24 are "work in progress" changesets. I can 'hg collapse -r 10:24 -m "Implemented feature ABC"' (14 changesets collapsed into 1). Then, I must 'hg pull' + 'hg merge' + 'hg commit -m "Merged with most recent changes"'. But now I'm stuck with 2 changesets. I can no longer 'hg collapse', because pull/merge/commit broke my changeset sequence. Of course 2 changesets is better then 15 but still, I'd rather have 1 changeset. </My own answer>

    Read the article

  • Using Mercurial in a Large Organization

    - by Kristopher Johnson
    I've been using Mercurial for my own personal projects for a while, and I love it. My employer is considering a switch from CVS to SVN, but I'm wondering whether I should push for Mercurial (or some other DVCS) instead. One wrinkle with Mercurial is that it seems to be designed around the idea of having a single repository per "project". In this organization, there are dozens of different executables, DLLs, and other components in the current CVS repository, hierarchically organized. There are a lot of generic reusable components, but also some customer-specific components, and customer-specific configurations. The current build procedures generally get some set of subtrees out of the CVS repository. If we move from CVS to Mercurial, what is the best way to organize the repository/repositories? Should we have one huge Mercurial repository containing everything? If not, how fine-grained should the smaller repositories be? I think people will find it very annoying if they have to pull and push updates from a lot of different places, but they will also find it annoying if they have to pull/push the entire company codebase. Anybody have experience with this, or advice?

    Read the article

  • DCVS + hosting for a startup commercial multiplatform phone app

    - by AG
    I'm in lean startup mode, working on a simple phone app that will be published initially as a iThingy app and an Android app with, possibly, Blackberry and Symbian versions to follow. I'm about to go from no repository to needing a central repository that up to 4 very part-time resources will be sharing. Two of us have no version control background, one has used Subversion, and I've used most of the major centralized VCS systems. I'm not going to be pushing the technical limitations of any VCS for a long time; I'm sure that any of the major systems would work fine. And the hosting accounts I've looked at seem reasonable. So I'm really focussed on minimizing the downside risks. That is, I'd like to find a stable setup that is easy to learn in general, easy to use from Windows/Eclipse, and won't paint me into any obvious corners for the next 12 months or so. A quick search of the web had led me to consider the following pairs of DVCS and hosting service, with what I think I'm hearing as their strengths and weaknesses (for my purposes): Bazaar/Launchpad -- My initial choice since I need to get more familiar with this pair for the Google Summer of Code mentoring I'm doing. But, whatever the technical merits, a non-starter for me because they are purely open source, no private repositories plans to purchase that I can see. Git/GitHub -- Git: Fast, light, ultimately flexible, but relatively less Windows friendly, Eclipse plugin (eGit) available but relatively young, GitHub: widely used, pricing is fine Mercurial/BitBucket -- Mercurial: a little less flexible, a little more Windows friendly, Eclipse plugin seems a bit more mature, BitBucket: widely used, pricing is fine, includes a wiki and an issue tracker that we might be able to use instead of something like BaseCamp, at least for a while. Mercurial/BitBucket seem like the winning pair so far for my particular situation; at least two of us are definitely going to be working mostly from Eclipse on Windows and reducing my own learning curve is a priority. ;-) But I have two specific questions: 1) Am I wrong about Bazaar/Launchpad and is there a viable, secure way to use them for proprietary code? 2) Any reason to think that the Mecurial/Bitbucket pair will end up being a headache for my Mac developer, soon, or for Blackberry or Symbian developers a little later? ag

    Read the article

  • Bazaar (bzr) predefined locations

    - by mkotechno
    Bazaar has a Launchpad pseudo-protocol (lp:) that able the user to operate in remote branchs without write full Launchpad location, I'm searching a way to create my own pseudo-protocols in a way like this (similar to GIT): bzr remote my sftp://[email protected]/home/myuser/myrepo/ bzr push my:mybranch bzr push my:otherbranch bzr push my:anotherbranch ...instead of... bzr push sftp://[email protected]/home/myuser/myrepo/mybranch bzr push sftp://[email protected]/home/myuser/myrepo/otherbranch bzr push sftp://[email protected]/home/myuser/myrepo/anotherbranch ...that is a pain in the ass. I readed about bazaar.conf but it seems only able you to set a globals push locations for each branch/repo. Another way I saw is to use alias, but has the same problem, is very ugly when is needed to create new branches. Is posible to do this without modify the BZR code? This should be obvious...

    Read the article

  • Pros and cons of distributed revision control systems?

    - by Ludwig Weinzierl
    What are the advantages and disadvantages of distributed revision control systems? If you have any experience with distributed systems like Git, Mercurial, Plastic SCM, etc. please share your experience. Tell us what worked well and where problems arose. I'm particularly interested to hear about the use of distributed systems in traditional, commercial, non-open source projects but answers about other uses are also welcome.

    Read the article

  • Using Git with VB6

    - by Gavin Schultz
    Our company has a large codebase in VB6, and we currently use VSS which, for all that we hate about it, at least integrates into the VB6 IDE. My own team, which is using .NET, are now looking into alternative SCMs like my personal favourite, Git. With Git Extensions, it seems we will be able to integrate Git commands into the Visual Studio IDE pretty well. However, the question has been asked: could Git be used for our VB6 codebase too? Of course I assume the files themselves would work fine in git repositories, but no doubt developers would complain if they had to use the command-line to do all their source control. But has anyone had any experience using VB6 and Git? Any integration available from within the VB6 IDE? Or is it perhaps not that much of a hassle to not have the IDE integration? And do I get a badge for being the first to create the absurd tag combination of [vb6] and [git]?

    Read the article

  • Git branching / rebasing good practices

    - by Pawel Krupinski
    I have a following scenario: 3 branches: - Master - MyBranch branched off Master for the purpose of developing a new feature of the system - MyBranchLocal branched off MyBranch as my local copy of the branch MyBranch is being rebased against and pushed to by other developers (who are working on the same feature as I am). As the owner of the MyBranch branch I want to keep it in sync with Master by rebasing. I also need to merge the changes I make to MyBranchLocal with MyBranch. What is a good way to do that? Couple of possible scenarios I tried so far: I. 1. Commit change to MyBranchLocal 2. Rebase MyBranch against Master 3. Rebase MyBranchLocal against MyBranch 4. Merge MyBranch with MyBranchLocal II. 1. Commit change to MyBranchLocal 2. Merge MyBranch with MyBranchLocal 3. Rebase MyBranch against Master 4. Rebase MyBranchLocal against MyBranch III. 1. Commit change to MyBranchLocal 2. Rebase MyBranch against Master 3. Merge MyBranch with MyBranchLocal 4. Rebase MyBranchLocal against MyBranch I already know that scenario III seems to be messing the commit history up a lot, potentially duplicating commits. What is your experience? What scenarios do you recommend?

    Read the article

  • In Mercurial, what is the exact step that Peter or me has to do so that he gets back the rolled back

    - by Jian Lin
    The short question is: if I hg rollback, how does Peter get my rolled back version if he cloned from me? What are the exact steps he or me has to do or type? This is related to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3034793/in-mercurial-when-peter-hg-clone-me-and-i-commit-and-he-pull-and-update-he-g The details: After the following steps, Mary has 7 and Peter has 11. My repository is 7 What are the exact steps Peter or me has to do or type SO THAT PETER GETS 7 back? F:\>mkdir hgme F:\>cd hgme F:\hgme>hg init F:\hgme>echo the code is 7 > code.txt F:\hgme>hg add code.txt F:\hgme>hg commit -m "this is version 1" F:\hgme>cd .. F:\>hg clone hgme hgpeter updating to branch default 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved F:\>cd hgpeter F:\hgpeter>type code.txt the code is 7 F:\hgpeter>cd .. F:\>cd hgme F:\hgme>notepad code.txt [now i change 7 to 11] F:\hgme>hg commit -m "this is version 2" F:\hgme>cd .. F:\>cd hgpeter F:\hgpeter>hg pull pulling from f:\hgme searching for changes adding changesets adding manifests adding file changes added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (run 'hg update' to get a working copy) F:\hgpeter>hg update 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved F:\hgpeter>type code.txt the code is 11 F:\hgpeter>cd .. F:\>cd hgme F:\hgme>hg rollback rolling back last transaction F:\hgme>cd .. F:\>hg clone hgme hgmary updating to branch default 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved F:\>cd hgmary F:\hgmary>type code.txt the code is 7 F:\hgmary>cd .. F:\>cd hgpeter F:\hgpeter>hg pull pulling from f:\hgme searching for changes no changes found F:\hgpeter>hg update 0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved F:\hgpeter>type code.txt the code is 11 F:\hgpeter>

    Read the article

  • In Mercurial, when Peter "hg clone" me, and I commit and he pull and update, he gets my version, but

    - by Jian Lin
    That is, in Mercurial, if Peter cloned from me by hg clone c:\mycode into his e:\code let's say there is a file code.txt and it contains the text the code is 7 Now, when I change it to the code is 11 and hg commit, then he can get my code using hg pull and hg update. Now his version says the code is 11 But if I decide the change was wrong and hg rollback, then my repository should have the 7 version, while the working directory should have the 11 version. So when Peter does an hg pull and hg update, he should be sync'ed up to my current repository, which is the 7, but I found that it is not the case -- he still gets the 11 version. Why is that? Can he get the rolled back code (the 7)? Does Git behave the same way too?

    Read the article

  • Mercurial: a few questions all related to .hgignore

    - by WizardOfOdds
    I've been working for a long time with a .hgignore file that was fine and recently added one new type of files to ignore. When running "hg status", I noticed this: M .hgignore So Mercurial considers the .hgignore to be a file that needs to be tracked (if it's a the root of the project). Now I've read various docs but my points weren't specifically adressed so here are some very detailed questions which hopefully can help me figure this out (it would be great is someone answering could quote and address these three points [even with a simply yes/no answer for each question]): Should .hgignore be at the root of the project? (I guess it should, seen that a developer can potentially be working on several projects which would all have different .hgignore requirements) Can .hgignore be ignored be Mercurial? If it can be ignored, should .hgignore be ignored by Mercurial (which is different than the previous question) In the case where .hgignore should not be ignored, can't some really bad thing happens if you suddenly rollback way earlier, when a really old and incomplete .hgignore was used? I think I saw weird things happening with certain per-user IDE project files (I'm not saying all IDEs project files are per-user only, but some definitely are) that were supposed to be ignored, but then the user rolls back to an old version, where an old .hgignore gets used, and then suddenly files supposed to be ignored are committed because the old .hgignore didn't exclude these.

    Read the article

  • Managing common components with Fossil CVS

    - by Larry Lustig
    I'm a Fossil (and CVS configuration novice) attempting to create and manage a set of distributed Fossil repositories for a Delphi project. I have the following directory tree: Projects Some Project Delphi Components LookupListView Some Client Some Project For Client Some Other Project For Client Source Code Project Resources Project Database I am setting up Fossil version control in order to version and share Projects\Some Client\Some Other Project For Client\Source Code, which contains Delphi 2010 source for a database project. This project makes use of Projects\Delphi Components\LookupListView which is a Delphi component. I need this code to be included in the versioning system for my project. I will, in theory, need to include it in other Fossil repositories in the future, as well. If I create my Fossil repository at the Source Code or Some Other Project For Client level, I cannot add any code above that level to my repository. What is the proper way to deal with this? The two solutions that occur to me are 1) Creating a separate repository for LookupListView and make sure that everyone who uses a repository for a project that references it "knows" that they must also get the current version of this project as well. This seems to defeat the purpose of being able to obtain a complete, current version of the project with a single checkout. The problem is magnified because there are other common component dependencies in this project. 2) Establishing my Fossil repository in the Projects directory, so I can check in files from various subfolders. This seems to me to involve an awful lot of extra path-typing when doing adds, and also to impose my directory structure (Some Client\Some Other Project For Client\Source) on the other users of the repository -- in this case, the actual client. Any suggestions appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Anyone use Distributed VCS in a corporate environment?

    - by Eddie Parker
    I'm curious to hear about people's experiences with distributed version control in a corporate environment. Specifically: Was it difficult to gain adoption? Now that it's in place, is it well liked? What 'model' are you using (hub & spoke? Something else?) Allowing you use hub & spoke, are there any discipline problems with pushing to a central server? I'd like to hear if anyone has non-programmers working within this environment, preferably artists and the like to whom VCS can be a bit daunting. Did it work out for them?

    Read the article

  • Hg: How to do a rebase like git's rebase

    - by jpswain09
    Hey guys, In Git I can do this: 1. Start working on new feature: $ git co -b newfeature-123 # (a local feature development branch) do a few commits (M, N, O) master A---B---C \ newfeature-123 M---N---O 2. Pull new changes from upstream master: $ git pull (master updated with ff-commits) master A---B---C---D---E---F \ newfeature-123 M---N---O 3. Rebase off master so that my new feature can be developed against the latest upstream changes: (from newfeature-123) $ git rebase master master A---B---C---D---E---F \ newfeature-123 M---N---O I want to know how to do the same thing in Mercurial, and I've scoured the web for an answer, but the best I could find was this: http://www.selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial/2007-June/013393.html That link provides 2 examples: 1. I'll admit that this: (replacing the revisions from the example with those from my own example) hg up -C F hg branch -f newfeature-123 hg transplant -a -b newfeature-123 is not too bad, except that it leaves behind the pre-rebase M-N-O as an unmerged head and creates 3 new commits M',N',O' that represent them branching off the updated mainline. Basically the problem is that I end up with this: master A---B---C---D---E---F \ \ newfeature-123 \ M'---N'---O' \ newfeature-123 M---N---O this is not good because it leaves behind local, unwanted commits that should be dropped. The other option from the same link is hg qimport -r M:O hg qpop -a hg up F hg branch newfeature-123 hg qpush -a hg qdel -r qbase:qtip and this does result in the desired graph: master A---B---C---D---E---F \ newfeature-123 M---N---O but these commands (all 6 of them!) seem so much more complicated than $ git rebase master I want to know if this is the only equivalent in Hg or if there is some other way available that is simple like Git. Thanks!! Jamie

    Read the article

  • Multi-level clones with Git?

    - by Chad Johnson
    So, I'm thinking of having the following centralized setup with Git (each of these are clones): stable development developer1 developer2 developer3 So, I created my stable repository git --bare init made the 'development' clone git clone ssh://host.name//path/to/stable/project.git development and made a 'developer' clone git clone ssh://host.name//path/to/development/project.git developer So, now, I make a change, commit, and then I push from my developer account git commit --all git push and the change goes to the development clone. But now, when I ssh to the server, go to the development clone directory, and run "git fetch" or "get pull", I don't see the changes. So what do I do? Am I totally misunderstanding things and doing things wrong? How can I see the changes in the 'development' clone that I pushed from my 'developer' clone? This worked fine in Mercurial.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  | Next Page >