When I'm learning to implement version control in Postman and about to merge changes from a personal workspace to a global workspace(main workspace), this is what I usually do:
Pull changes
Merge changes
And usually it runs smoothly, but this time I encountered an error like this during merge changes (it resolved the conflict because there was a conflict during the merge):
What should be done to fix this problem?
Related
I have always worked alone rather than in a Dev team, so this has never been an issue
I am about to take on someone else to code with so some kind of versioning control is required
I have been looking at GitHub and integrating it with Netbeans
I can make changes and commit them no problem.
I was expecting to be able to ‘check out’ a file or files which would prevent the other user(s) from editing those files while I was editing until I commit the file and check it in
Is this the normal procedure and I am missing something, or is my understanding of GitHub incorrect?
it does help with some general understanding, but is there anything to stop one of us editing a file the other one is currently editing?
No: with a decentralized version control system, there is no (optimist or pessimist) locking mechanism possible or desirable.
The reconciliation is done when you are pushing your local work to the common remote repository: if other commits have already been pushed, you will have to pull first, merge their work to your branch (or rebase your branch on top of their work), test locally and, if everything is still working, try and push again.
Minimizing conflict and avoiding multiple team members are working on the same set of file remains an organization and communication issue.
I am using the git plugin for eclipse and I have noticed a problem with it and hoping this is a simple configuration change. Can anyone help?
When switching branches, the uncommitted changes are being merged across onto the newly checked out branch (only in certain circumstances). It seems as if this happens every time when it is "safe" to do so. The way to recreate is:
Create feature branch "branch1" from remote repository
Create feature branch "branch2" from same remote repository
Make changes on "branch2" and don't commit changes.
Switch to "branch1"
a. No confirmation message is shown.
b. The uncommitted changes from "branch2" are merged onto "branch1"
I want to be able to force the commit message to appear (just like it does using git-bash). Is this possible?
To my understanding, this behavior is intended by EGit: a checkout is performed as long as the files to be checked out do not collide with the working directory. And uncommitted changes are left as they are.
If you think EGit should offer a different strategy of handling uncommitted changes I suggest to open an enhancement request: https://eclipse.org/egit/support/
In the meanwhile, you may want to (manually) stash uncommitted changes prior to switching branches. That's what I see most people do in this situation.
I've got a project on git, assume it has the following files:
HelloWorld.java
README.md
pom.xml
I edit/commit README.md using Github's editor; no problem. Then, in eclipse using eGit, I edit HelloWorld.java, but when I attempt to commit and push that file, I get an error: non-fast-forward. Unless I do Pull first I can't commit the java file. Why is this the case? Using SVN I never had such a problem. Why does Git not allow me to commit a file when some other, unrelated file in the project is changed? I read up on this but I still don't understand the rationale behind the issue.
BTW, I'm making all changes on master for now.
That is because git is making sure your repository is up to date with the master before you commit changes. The problem is with pushing not committing. You can't push to a repository that you haven't got all the changes for. What you can do is create a new branch with your changes and merge that with the master later if you want, that is the system git uses for what you want to do.
An SVN server will do some types of merges itself, particularly when the changes are to different files as in your case. Since SVN represents branches and tags as different parts of a single tree and a single repository can contain multiple, unrelated projects this is necessary.
But git will never do a merge on the server. And since a commit represents the entire tree, your situation is a merge even though no single file was modified by both sides that need to be merged.
Even though changes being restricted to different files guarantees that there won't be any textual conflicts between them, there can still be semantic conflicts. Imagine if you're working on a change to a library function which requires all callers to be modified, and before you push that change out another developer adds a new file which contains a new call to that function. If that new file is the only change the other developer made, SVN would allow you to commit your changes and handle the merge on the server even though that will cause the code to be broken. By requiring that all merges happen under developer control, git at least gives the opportunity for this type of conflict to be caught; even though in many cases a developer may just do an automatic merge and push the results without any checking.
I'm trying to identify the proper way of working with multiple branches on Gerrit that would match our workflow.
The way we work with branches right now is: we have master & feature branch. Master is the branch we want to polish and make it ready for release, while feature is obviously a field of intensive work. Now, in our particular case whenever somebody works on a bug fix, they:
create a change targeted for master branch
cherry pick it to the feature branch targeted change
once gerrit code review completes, submit both changes.
now the way i understand cherry-pick, it selects individual commit and merges it to the current change. if that is the case, i would expect to have no merge conflicts in the end, and indeed this workflow works perfectly with just GIT. Gerrit, however, most likely due to its nature (branches are not merged remotely the way these are locally and get a different sha tag) lists a tremendous number of conflicting files in the end.
Now, I resolved all these issues by applying merge strategy (ours on feature, theirs on master), but it does not feel right: if anything was not propagated, it just got discarded.
My question is: is there a safe workflow, similar to the above one, that would in the end produce a clean merge with gerrit?
I would say that it's better, in this case, to merge than to cherry pick.
A cherry pick adds the same changes but not the same commit. So while the source is the same on a cherry pick and merge the git tree is different. When the tree is different and you later do a merge git will think that the commit you previously cherry picked is missing and try to merge that change as well, even if the actual code is already there. That's probably why you get a lot of conflicts.
I would propose another way of working.
When you do normal work you develop on feature and push to Gerrit as normal.
When you do a patch (ie bug fix) on the stable production environment you do that directly on master (or local branches if you like but not on feature)
When the patch as been approved in Gerrit it get's merged into the real master and you can make a pull request to get that change to your local copy. Your version of master is now the same as Gerrits master
Now you would merge all new changes on master into feature. Make sure you do a rebase so that the patch ends up before anything you've already done on feature
Once it's time to deploy all new features you can merge feature into master, push to Gerrit (if you have permissions you can by pass gerrit by pushing directly to master instead of refs/for/master as these changes are already reviewed)
Once all changes are on Gerrits master you do a pull on your master and a merge into feature with rebase making feature a clean branch to work on. It's of course totally valid to have a new feature each release. Both work fine.
I'm a little confused, as this flow should work just fine. If other users submit changes before your bug fix is reviewed/verified/submitted, that could result in merge conflicts, but that should be rare.
If you:
Fix a bug on master
Push to review (creating change A in gerrit)
cherry-pick change A on top of the feature branch (resolving any conflicts from master to feature)
Push the cherry-picked change to review (creating change B)
Review/verify/submit changes A & B
Everything will work fine. The only way for merge conflicts to occur is if other users upload and submit changes between steps 1 and 5. Are you seeing different behavior? Can you provide more details?
I have heard this several times, that one should always update before committing to a version control system. Why is that ?
If you don't update you risk facing a conflict if someone else has edited any of the files you want to commit while you were editing them.
In source control systems like Subversion you won't be allowed to commit before you update even if changes belong to different lines - you will have to first do an update then possibly resolve conflicts, then you'll be allowed to commit. It works like this: you start committing, the Subversion repo server checks whether any of your changes conflict with recent changes, if any of them does conflict the commit is rejected as a whole.
In older systems (I can't name an example) that perhaps could cause serious problems like overwriting changes or doing an incomplete commit (some files committed, some not).
So that you are in sync with the repo and if any conflict happens it happens in your local checkout files, which you can resolve and then commit.
You need to update so that you can get the latest changes before you check in. If you don't take an update, when you come to check in then the VCS will tell you that you need to update.
you can then effectively know your changes are fully integrated with others before you check in