Search Results

Search found 341 results on 14 pages for 'branching'.

Page 5/14 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• Git: Help an SVN novice translate trunk/branch concepts to Git

  - by Jasconius

  So I am not much of a source control expert, I've used SVN for projects in the past. I have to use Git for a particular project (client supplied Git repo). My workflow is as such that I will be working on the files from two different computers, and often I need to check in changes that are unstable when I move from place to place so I can continue my work. What then occurs is when, say, the client goes to get the latest version, they will also download the unstable code. In SVN, you can address this by creating a trunk and use working branches, or use the trunk as the working version and create stable branches. What is the equivalent concept in Git, and is there a simple way to do this via Github?

  Read the article

• 2-Version software: Best VCS approach?

  - by Tom R

  I suppose I'd better explain my situation: I'm in the process of developing some software, and I'm at the stage where I'd like to split my project into two branches which differ in features. It so happens that this application is an Android application which I will be deploying on the Market, which has the constraint that every app must have a unique package identifier (sensible, no?). My current approach has been to clone the git repo of my original project, but this causes issues with package names. I want the system to be robust enough so that a bugfix/new feature on one branch will merge into another branch, but only when I want it to. Does anyone have any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Can't branch a single file with Mercurial?

  - by Benny

  is this possible with Mercurial? and which Version Control system can do this besides Clearcase?

  Read the article

• How to find if a branch is a locally tracked branch or user created local branch?

  - by Senthil A Kumar

  I have a remote tracking branch tracked locally in my local repository using 'git branch -b branch-name origin/branch-name'. My remote branch is test2/test2 (origin/branch-name) which is being tracked locally as test2. The origin is also named test2. I haven't checked-out my local tracking branch test2. When i do a 'git pull origin remote-branch:local-tracked-branch' i get this error [test2]$ git pull test2 test2:test2 From /gitvobs/git_bare/test2 ! [rejected] test2 - test2 (non fast forward) Whereas when i checkout my local tracking branch test2 and do pull 'git pull origin local-tracked-branch' i don't get the error and i do a pull using 'git pull test2 test2' From /gitvobs/git_bare/test2 * branch test2 - FETCH_HEAD Auto-merging a.txt Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result. i know that adding a + (git pull test2 +test2:test2) would help but it overwrites local changes. So how do i know which of my local branches are created by me locally using 'git branch new-branch-name' or tracked locally from remote branches using git branch -b branch-name origin/branch-name'?

  Read the article

• TFS How does merging work?

  - by Johannes Rudolph

  I have a release branch (RB, starting at C5) and a changeset on trunk (C10) that I now want to merge onto RB. The file has changes at C3 (common to both), one in CS 7 on RB, and one in C9 (trunk) and one in C10). So the history for my changed file looks like this: RB: C5 -> C7 Trunk: C3 -> C9 -> C10 When I merge C10 from trunk to RB, I'd expect to see a merge window showing me C10 | C3 | C7 since C3 is the common ancestor revision and C10 and C7 are the tips of my two branches respectively. However, my merge tool shows me C10 | C9 | C7. My merge tool is configured to show %1(OriginalFile)|%3(BaseFile)|%2(Modified File), so this tells me TFS chose C9 as the base revision. This is totally unexpected and completely contrary to the way I'm used to merges working in Mercurial or Git. Did I get something wrong or is TFS trying to drive me nuts with merging? Is this the default TFS Merge behavior? If so, can you provide insight into why they chose to implement it this way? I'm using TFS 2008 with VS2010 as a Client.

  Read the article

• How do repos (SVN, GIT) work?

  - by masfenix

  I read SO nearly everyday and mostly there is a thread about source control. I have a few questions. I am going to use SVN as example. 1) There is a team (small, large dosnt matter). In the morning everyone checks out the code to start working. At noon Person A commits, while person B still works on it. What happens when person B commits? how will person B know that there is an updated file? 2) I am assuming the answer to the first question is "run an update command which tells you", ok so person B finds out that the file they have been working on all morning in changed. When they see the udpated file, it seems like person A has REWRITTEN the file for better performance. What does person B do? Seems like there whole day was a waste of time. Or if they commit their version then its a waste of person A's time? 3) What are branches? thanks, and if anyone knows a laymen terms pdf or something that explains it that would be awesome.

  Read the article

• Is it possible to have an inconsistent branch/tag with SVN due to concurrent commit action?

  - by maraspin

  I'm trying to understand whether subversion has its own mechanisms for regulating concurrent user activities on the trunk (IE a branch/tag action and a commit action happening at the same time) or if it's up to the users to sync between themselves before acting on the trunk. I've been trying to find documentation about this on the net but haven't been able to come up with something, so I appreciate if someone can enlighten me on the topic. Thank you in advance!

  Read the article

• How do I keep my branches up to date with the 'default' branch under Mercurial?

  - by Chad Johnson

  Let's say I have the following workflow with Mercurial: stable (clone on server) default (branch) development (clone on server) default (branch) bugs (branch) developer1 (clone on local machine) developer2 (clone on local machine) developer3 (clone on local machine) feature1 (branch) developer3 (clone on local machine) feature2 (branch) developer1 (clone on local machine) developer2 (clone on local machine) My main line of development which is always in a release ready state is 'default'. So the 'default' branch in the 'development' clone is always release-ready. Now suppose I'm developer1 working on feature2. And let's say also that feature2 takes several months. It's pretty obvious that I'm going to want to keep my 'feature2' branch up to date with the 'default' branch. Does this make sense? How would I go about doing this with Mercurial?

  Read the article

• Undoing branch creation in Mercurial

  - by michaelmior

  How can I undo the creation of a branch in Mercurial? For example, if I issue the command hg branch newbranch How can I delete this branch if I decide I entered the wrong name? I'm guessing this must be pretty simple to do, but I have yet to figure it out. Thanks!

  Read the article

• How to replace master branch in git, entirely, from another branch?

  - by Jason

  Hi, I have two branch in my git repo: master seotweaks (created originally from master) I created "seotweaks" with the intention of quickly merging it back into master, however that was 3 months ago and the code in this branch is 13 versions ahead of "master", it has effectively become our working master branch as all the code in "master" is more or less obsolete now. Very bad practice I know, lesson learnt. Do you know how I can replace all of the contents of the "master" branch with those in "seotweaks"? I could just delete everything in "master" and merge, but this does not feel like best practice.

  Read the article

• SVN - When you tag a working copy is it still a cheap copy?

  - by mcdon

  Using Subversion, in my working copy I make a minor modification (update a version number). I would then like to tag my working copy. Would this tag still be a cheap copy with the modification, or would SVN duplicate the files? I would hate to see my repository grow enormously in size because I'm trying to save a version number change. The reason I ask about creating a tag that contains a modification rather than committing then tagging involves my build server. The build server creates a CCNetLabel which I use to update the version numbers of my projects (AssemblyInfo.cs). When the build is successful it creates a tag. When I use ForceBuild the tag is based on the working copy which would contain the modified version number. I want the tag to contain the appropriate version number. note: It's debatable if I'm creating a branch or a tag, however SVN does not make a distinction between the two.

  Read the article

• How do you handle the tension between refactoring and the need for merging?

  - by Xavier Nodet

  Hi, Our policy when delivering a new version is to create a branch in our VCS and handle it to our QA team. When the latter gives the green light, we tag and release our product. The branch is kept to receive (only) bug fixes so that we can create technical releases. Those bug fixes are subsequently merged on the trunk. During this time, the trunk sees the main development work, and is potentially subject to refactoring changes. The issue is that there is a tension between the need to have a stable trunk (so that the merge of bug fixes succeed -- it usually can't if the code has been e.g. extracted to another method, or moved to another class) and the need to refactor it when introducing new features. The policy in our place is to not do any refactoring before enough time has passed and the branch is stable enough. When this is the case, one can start doing refactoring changes on the trunk, and bug-fixes are to be manually committed on both the trunk and the branch. But this means that developpers must wait quite some time before committing on the trunk any refactoring change, because this could break the subsequent merge from the branch to the trunk. And having to manually port bugs from the branch to the trunk is painful. It seems to me that this hampers development... How do you handle this tension? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Versioning code in two separate projects concurently with subverison

  - by Matt1776

  I have a need to create a library of Object Oriented PHP code that will see much reuse and aspires to be highly flexible and modular. Because of its independent nature I would like it to exist as its own SVN project. I would like to be able to create a new web project, save it in SVN as its own separate project, and include within it the library project code as well. During this process, while coding the web application code and making commits, I may need to add a class to the library. I would like to be able to do so and commit those changes back to the libraries project code. In light of all this I could manage the code in two ways Commit the changes to the library back to a branch of its original base project code and make the branch name relevant to the web project I was using it with Commit the changes to the library back to the original code, growing it in size regardless of any specific references that might exist. I have two questions How can I include this library project code into a new project yet not break the subversion functionality, i.e. allowing me to make changes to each project individually? How I can keep the code synchronized? If I choose the first method of managing the library code I may want to grab changes from another branch and pull it in for use in another.

  Read the article

• Good overview tool / board for visualizing Subversion branch acitivity?

  - by Sam

  Our team is sometimes finding it a bit confusing and time-consuming to figure out which subversion operations have been perrformed on our different branches in Subversion. Example, when has the Development branch last been merged into the Trunk? When was this particular Tag created, based on what branch etc etc. All of this information can of course be extracted from the Subversion Log, but thats always a manual, time-consuming and error-prone process. Simplest solution seems to be a simple whiteboard with a visualization of all the different branches/tags/trunk in Subversion and people drawing on it, whenever something significant happens. But we're not averse to finding some kind of a digital solution as well, stored centrally. Obviously both systems depend on people actually maintaining the model, but you'll always more or less have that. What do you use as best practice for keeping a clear view on all Subversion operations in the current Sprint (or beyond)?

  Read the article

• Trimming GIT Checkins/Squashing GIT History

  - by yar

  I check my code into a GIT branch every few minutes or so, and the comments end up being things like "Everything broken starting again" and other absurdities. Then every few minutes/hours/days I do a serious checkin with a real comment like, "Fixed bug #22.55, 3rd time." How can I separate these two concepts? I would like to be able to remove all my frequent-checkins and just leave the serious ones.

  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

• How to catch-up named mercurial branch from default branch without merging the two into one?

  - by Dynite

  I have two branches in mercurial.. default named |r1 |r2 |r3 -------- named branch created here. | |r4 | |r5 | r6 | | |r7 | | -----------> | r8 How do I achieve this catch-up? | | I want to update the named branch from default, but I'm not ready to merge the branches yet. How do I achieve this? Edit: Additionally, what would the operation be using the GUI? Is it.. right-click r6, merge with..., r8,... then what? commit to named branch?

  Read the article

• git: Switch branch and ignore any changes without committing.

  - by boyfarrell

  Hello, I have got the git branch I'm working on to a nice place. So I make a commit with a useful commit message. I then absentmindedly make minor changes to the code that are not work keeping. I now want to changes branches, but git gives me, error: You have local changes to "X"; cannot switch branches. I thought that I could change branches without committing? If so how can I set this up. If not, how do I get out of this problem? I want to ignore the minor changes without committing and just changes branches! Cheers, Dan

  Read the article

• Bad idea to force creation of Mercurial remote heads (ie. branches)?

  - by Chad Johnson

  I am developing a centralized web application, and I have a centralized Mercurial repository. Locally I created a branch in my repository hg branch my_branch I then made some changes and committed. Then when I try to push, I get abort: push creates new remote branch 'my_branch'! (did you forget to merge? use push -f to force) I've just been using push -f. Is this bad? I WANT multiple branches in my central, remote repository, as I want to 1) back up my work and 2) allow other developers to develop with me on that branch. Is it bad or something to have branches in my remote repository or something? Should I not be doing push -f (and if not, what should I do?)? Why does Joel say this in his tutorial: Occasionally I've made a change in a branch, pushed, switched to another branch, and changes I had made in that branch I switch to were mysteriously reverted to a previous version from several commits ago. Maybe this is a symptom of forcing a push?

  Read the article

• Mercurial: Class library that will exist for both .NET 3.5 and 4.0?

  - by Lasse V. Karlsen

  I have a rather big class library written in .NET 3.5 that I'd like to upgrade to make available for .NET 4.0 as well. In that process, I will rip out a lot of old junk, and rewrite some code to better take advantage of the new classes and support in .NET 4.0 (like TPL.) The class libraries will thus diverge, but still be similar enough that some bug-fixes can be done to both in the same manner. How should I best organize this class library in Mercurial? I'm using Kiln (fogbugz) if that matters. I'm thinking: Named branches in one repository, can then transplant any bugfixes from one to the other Unnamed branches in one repository, can also transplant, but I think this will look messy Separate repositories, will have to reimplement the bugfixes (or use a non-mercurial-integraded compare tool to help me) What would you do? (any other alternatives that I haven't though of is welcome as well.) Note that the class libraries will diverge pretty heavily in areas, I have some remnants of old collection-type code that does something similar to Linq that I will remove, and some code that uses it that I will rewrite to use the Linq-methods instead. As such, just copying the project files and using #if NET40..#endif sections is not going to work out. Also, the 3.5 version of the class library will not be getting many new features, mostly just critical bug-fixes, so keeping both versions equally "alive" isn't really necessary. Thus, separate copies of all the files are good enough.

  Read the article

• How to do simultaneous builds in two Git branches?

  - by james creasy

  I've looked at git-new-workdir, but I don't want the history to be shared because the branches have a release-main relationship. That is, changes in the release branch I want to propagate to the main line, but changes in the main line I don't want in the release line. A common pattern for me is to fix a bug in the release line, integrate it to the main line, then start builds in both branches at the same time. Is there a way to do this with git-new-workdir, do I need to clone, or is there a better solution? Thanks

  Read the article

• SVN branches: Delete branch locally, but do not show up as modified

  - by Quintin Par

  I accidently went and synced up my branches folder resulting in a download of all the branches on my local harddisk (very huge in size) Now how can I delete the branches locally but not show up in the svn as modified/missing? I use tortisesvn

  Read the article

• Usage scenario for svn branches

  - by Paul Knopf

  I have a product that I distribute to my clients. Each client needs some UI customization. I want each client to be able to get updated with new version easily. Can I create a project in svn that serves as a "base project", and then create branches for each client? With that said, will I then be able to commit changes in a branch to the branch, with the option of pushing that change to the core? Can I also perform and "update" command in a branch that will only update changes to the core?

  Read the article

• Branching strategy for parallel development that won't be in the same release?

  - by Telastyn

  My team is working on a product, which for business reasons needs to be released on a regular schedule. An issue has arisen where we want to do development in parallel for the upcoming release, as well as the 'next' release. This is to become standard practice, so it's not as straightforward as cutting a feature branch for the new work. We'll continually have 2+ teams working on different releases of the same product. Is there an SCM best practice for this sort of arrangement?

  Read the article

• How can I determine the "correct" number of steps in a questionnaire where branching is used?

  - by Mike Kingscott

  I have a potential maths / formula / algorithm question which I would like help on. I've written a questionnaire application in ASP.Net that takes people through a series of pages. I've introduced conditional processing, or branching, so that some pages can be skipped dependent on an answer, e.g. if you're over a certain age, you will skip the page that has Teen Music Choice and go straight to the Golden Oldies page. I wish to display how far along the questionnaire someone is (as a percentage). Let's say I have 10 pages to go through and my first answer takes me straight to page 9. Technically, I'm now 90% of the way through the questionnaire, but the user can think of themselves as being on page 2 of 3: the start page (with the branching question), page 9, then the end page (page 10). How can I show that I'm on 66% and not 90% when I'm on page 9 of 10? For further information, each Page can have a number of questions on that can have one or more conditions on them that will send the user to another page. By default, the next page will be the next one in the collection, but that can be over-ridden (e.g. entire sets of pages can be skipped). Any thoughts? :-s

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >