Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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

  • lightweight/portable VCS for server-hopping DBA?

    - by Aaron
    I'm looking for a VCS that'll help me keep all of my work scripts in-sync. Requirements: Portable (as in flash drive, not code-level) Run on Windows XP and Server 2003+ No installation dependencies (Cygwin, perl, Python) I use Mercurial on my work machine for version control of the various T-SQL, ksh, perl, and CMD/BAT scripts that I maintain as a MS SQL Server DBA and Unix sysadmin. So far, hg has worked for my AIX boxes- I mount my home directory as I login, and deal with the repo as if it were local. I haven't been able to find a similar solution for the Windows machines I use. Most of them I do not have Local Admin rights; even if I did, I'd rather not install (and maintain) Python + Mercurial on all of them. I can't get to my home directory on them remotely, which leaves a client running on each machine as the only option. Bonus points for an answer that would let me use a single repo for both the Windows and Unix machines. :) I'm running WinXP, with heavy use of Cygwin and a CrunchBang VM.

    Read the article

  • Doing without partial commits the "Mercurial way"

    - by David Moles
    Subversion shop considering switching to Mercurial, trying to figure out in advance what all the complaints from developers are going to be. There's one fairly common use case here that I can't see how to handle. I'm working on some largish feature, and I have a significant part of the code -- or possibly several significant parts of the code -- in pieces all over the garage floor, totally unsuitable for checkin, maybe not even compiling. An urgent bugfix request comes in. The fix is nice and local and doesn't touch any of the code I've been working on. I make the fix in my working copy. Now what? I've looked at "Mercurial cherry picking changes for commit" and "best practices in mercurial: branch vs. clone, and partial merges?" and all the suggestions seem to be extensions of varying complexity, from Record and Shelve to Queues. The fact that there apparently isn't any core functionality for this makes me suspect that in some sense this working style is Doing It Wrong. What would a Mercurial-like solution to this use case look like?

    Read the article

  • Cheap cloning/local branching in Mercurial

    - by Zack
    Hi, Just started working with Mercurial a few days ago and there's something I don't understand. I have an experimental thing I want to do, so the normal thing to do would be to clone my repository, work on the clone and if eventually I want to keep those changes, I'll push them to my main repository. Problem is cloning my repository takes alot of time (we have alot of code) and just compiling the cloned copy would take up to an hour. So I need to somehow work on a different repository but still in my original working copy. Enter local branches. Problem is just creating a local branch takes forever, and working with them isn't all that fun either. Because when moving between local branches doesn't "revert" to the target branch state, I have to issue a hg purge (to remove files that were added in the moved from branch) and then hg update -c (to revert modified files in the moved from branch). (note: I did try PK11 fork of local branch extension, it a simple local branch creation crashes with an exception) At the end of the day, this is just too complex. What are my options?

    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

  • Showing renames in hg log?

    - by Ryan Thompson
    I know that Mercurial can track renames of files, but how do I get it to show me renames instead of adds/removes when I do hg log? For instance, instead of: A bin/extract-csv-column.pl A bin/find-mirna-binding.pl A bin/xls2csv-separate-sheets.pl A lib/Text/CSV/Euclid.pm R src/extract-csv-column.pl R src/find-mirna-binding.pl R src/modules/Text/CSV/Euclid.pm R src/xls2csv-separate-sheets.pl I want some indication that four files have been moved. I think I read somewhere that the output is like this to preserve backward-compatibility with something-or-other, but I'm not worried about that.

    Read the article

  • Using Mercurial (hg), can you just "hg backout" all the commits you did for the files you don't want

    - by Jian Lin
    Using Mercurial (hg), can you just "hg backout" all the commits you did for the files you don't want to push, and then do a push? Because Mercurial (or Git) won't let us push a single file or a single folder to another repository, so I am thinking: 1) How about, we just look at the commit we did, and hg backout the ones we don't want to push. 2) hg out -v to see the list of files that will be pushed 3) now do the push by hg push Is this a good way? This is because I got the following advice: 1) Don't commit that file if you don't want it to be pushed (but sometimes even just for experimentation, I do want to keep the intermediate revisions) (-- maybe I can hg commit and hg backout right away to prevent it from being pushed.) 2) Some people told me just to hg clone tmp from that repository i want to push to, and then copy the local file over to this tmp working directory, hg commit to this tmp repository, and then do a push. But I found that the hg clone tmp will take up 400MB of new data and files, and make the hard drive work very hard, just to push 1 file? So I would rather not use this method.

    Read the article

  • preserving history when using mercurial ontop of clearcase

    - by Arthur Ulfeldt
    I work in a ClearCase shop and CC does a good job of integrating the team's work though our code review process prevents me from using it to track my daily changes. Creating an hg repository on top of my CC view works really well. I can track my changes and easily make backups on the file server, produce diffs for people etc. This is all well and good until I move to a new CC view and have to leave my history behind. I would love to be able to ?pull? my previous history in and have everything that's different in the new view show up as the latest change set.

    Read the article

  • Is it good to commit files often if using Mercurial or Git?

    - by Jian Lin
    It seems that it is suggested we can commit often to keep track of intermediate changes of code we wrote… such as on hginit.com, when using Mercurial or Git. However, let's say if we work on a project, and we commit files often. Now for one reason or another, the manager wants part of the feature to go out, so we need to do a push, but I heard that on Mercurial or Git, there is no way to push individual files or a folder… either everything committed gets pushed or nothing get pushed. So we either have to revert all those files we don't want to push, or we just never should commit until before we push -- right after commit, we push?

    Read the article

  • Using mercurial for web-design version control (dealing with images)

    - by Acorn
    I'm very new to Version Control, and I was wondering if I could get some advice on how it can fit into website design. At the moment I'm working on a typical, simple website that includes images: A few .html files and a .css file One folder full of photographs Another folder with the corresponding thumbnails Can I just put the whole lot in a repository? Or is there a better way I could apply Version Control to it? How should I deal with the images? edit: How well will it work with changes to the images? What if I decide to try and optimise my photographs or resize them. I wont be able to see what exactly changed about the images, should comments be enough to keep track of that?

    Read the article

  • Version control for subtitle creation

    - by user3635
    We make subtitles for a TV series and I plan to use a VCS for it. The structure of project directory is like this: series/ episode1/nameofepisode1.str episode2/nameofepisode2.str episode3/nameofepisode3.str ... Question: When I finish subtitle of an episode, I want to assign release tag for this episode (episode1_v1). I wanted to use git for this, but in git tag is assigned only to the whole repository. What to do, so that I can view every episode progress separately? Maybe there are some more suitable VCS for this?

    Read the article

  • Migrating away from Clearcase

    - by John Clark
    We are migrating from Clearcase to another VCS (probably either SVN or Mercurial). For companies that have made this transition, what factors did they find important in selecting another VCS tool, and what practices did they find eased the transition?

    Read the article

  • Does any Version Control System like SVN, Git, or Mercurial let you "keep latest version" but not th

    - by Jian Lin
    In our project files, if there are binary files, such as .doc, .xls, .jpg, and we choose to not keep their past revisions (just keeping a latest version is ok), is there a way to tell SVN, Git, or Mercurial or some other tool to skip the revisions for these files or for a particular folder? Say, there is a 4MB .doc file that I need to check in hundred of times, but I don't really care so much about its past versions. So if the system keeps 100 revisions of it, that's already 400MB... checking in 300 times means 1.2GB for 1 file and that's not good. Only the latest version is good so that everybody can sync to it.

    Read the article

  • Should checkins be small steps or complete features?

    - by Caspin
    Two of version controls uses seem to dictate different checkin styles. distibution centric: changesets will generally reflect a complete feature. In general these checkins will be larger. This style is more user/maintainer friendly. rollback centric: changesets will be individual small steps so the history can function like an incredibly powerful undo. In general these checkins will be smaller. This style is more developer friendly. I like to use my version control as really powerful undo while while I banging away at some stubborn code/bug. In this way I'm not afraid to make drastic changes just to try out a possible solution. However, this seems to give me a fragmented file history with lots of "well that didn't work" checkins. If instead I try to have my changeset reflect complete features I loose the use of my version control software for experimentation. However, it is much easier for user/maintainers to figure out how the code is evolving. Which has great advantages for code reviews, managing multiple branches, etc. So what's a developer to do? checkin small steps or complete features?

    Read the article

  • What are the advantages of a rebase over a merge in git?

    - by eSKay
    In this article, the author explains rebasing with this diagram: Rebase: If you have not yet published your branch, or have clearly communicated that others should not base their work on it, you have an alternative. You can rebase your branch, where instead of merging, your commit is replaced by another commit with a different parent, and your branch is moved there. while a normal merge would have looked like this: So, if you rebase, you are just losing a history state (which would be garbage collected sometime in the future). So, why would someone want to do a rebase at all? What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Advantages of GitHub over Bitbucket for Git Repositories [closed]

    - by rolve
    Now that Bitbucket also supports Git repositories, it seams to me that it is a good alternative to GitHub, especially since its free plan includes unlimited private repositories, which is not available on GitHub. Yet, GitHub seams much more popular. Are there any major reasons to choose GitHub as the hosting site for Git repositories instead of Bitbucket? (Although I have no problems with making my personal projects publicly available in general, I like the idea of being able to make the switch from public to private or vice versa any time I want. But if there are some good reasons to use GitHub, I would be willing to give up this freedom.)

    Read the article

  • Does a Distributed Version Control System really have no centralised repository?

    - by John
    It might seem a silly question, but how do you get a working drectory set up without a server to check out from? And how does a business keep a safe backed up copy of the repo? I assume then there must be a central repo... but then how exactly is it 'distributed'? I always thought of a server-client (SVN) Vs peer-2-peer (GIT) distinction, but I don't believe that can be correct unless tools like GIT are dependent on torrent-style technology?

    Read the article

  • Distributed version control for HUGE projects - is it feasible?

    - by Vilx-
    We're pretty happy with SVN right now, but Joel's tutorial intrigued me. So I was wondering - would it be feasible in our situation too? The thing is - our SVN repository is HUGE. The software itself has a 15 years old legacy and has survived several different source control systems already. There are over 68,000 revisions (changesets), the source itself takes up over 100MB and I cant even begin to guess how many GB the whole repository consumes. The problem then is simple - a clone of the whole repository would probably take ages to make, and would consume far more space on the drive that is remotely sane. And since the very point of distributed version control is to have a as many repositories as needed, I'm starting to get doubts. How does Mercurial (or any other distributed version control) deal with this? Or are they unusable for such huge projects?

    Read the article

  • What are the merits of using the various VCS (Version Control Systems) that exist to track Drupal pr

    - by ZoFreX
    I'm trying to find the best version control strategy for my workflow with Drupal. I have multiple sites per install and I'm pretty sure I'll have a separate repository for each website. As far as I know, the VCSs worth considering are: SVN Bazaar (bzr) Git Mercurial (hg) I know how these compare to each other in general, but want to learn their merits/demerits for Drupal. If you're using (or have used) any of these for Drupal: What is your setup? What about the VCS you chose works well for managing Drupal projects? What doesn't?

    Read the article

  • Mercurial commit only tip

    - by kiw
    In my setup I have a central Hg repo to which I'm pushing my local changes. Say in my local clone I have a series of local commits and then I want to push the changes to the central repo. How can I push only the final state without including all of the "small" local commits that I made? I want this because sometimes I dont want to pollute the central repo's history with all of the small local commits that I made.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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