I can not prove to the management the futility and even harm of saving IDE specific files and folders in GitHub
There is even a problem in the deliberate mixing of two different issues:
I want to use Eclipse;
If we use Eclipse, then its files should be stored in the repository;
I tried everything:
from "files not related to the project should not be there"
to "every developer knows how to configure their IDE for the project based on the pom.xml"
and "if two programmers use two different IDEs, should their files also be saved?"
and so on... like "specially designed gitignore.io provides recommended gitignore based on what you are using."
What arguments can be given besides “no one does that for a long time because it's obvious”.
PS. I am not going to start another holy war, I need arguments that are clear to the management.
The rule is not do not share IDE-specific files, but as long as tool-specific files are maintained, they should be shared, even if they are not used by everyone.
This applies to specific files of GitHub, Jenkins, FindBugs/SpotBugs, Eclipse and other tools. The presence of these files does not harm (files and folders starting with a dot meant to be hidden). This is well documented (e.g. here for Eclipse) and after all, the tools do not place these files in the project directory for no reason, although it would be possible otherwise, but because they are meant to be shared.
However, there are still people who believe that there should be one Maven-specific pom.xml file only, which is focused on building only. But since none of them is a tool developer and none of them has never convinced the tool developers, it is very unlikely that you will convince your management.
Also be aware that Eclipse-specific files are not specific to the Eclipse IDE, as they are also used by e.g. VS Code. Eclipse-specific are not even IDE-specific, since, for example, the Eclipse compiler for Java (ecj) can be used as a linter inside a build to run on a server.
Related
Recently I've begun taking advantage of the features offered by using robust IDEs, particularly the debugger and autocomplete found in Eclipse Juno and Visual Studio 2012.
However, many of my projects deal with lots of local files; for game projects I have custom content files, for data mining I have lots of data files that need to be referenced from a set of Python scripts, etc.
My issue is that storing these files within the project structure of the IDE seems hacky somehow (also, the IDEs tend to require a single entry point, which isn't so cool for working with data via a suite of scripts). The only other option I've found, using absolute paths relative to the drive, results in less-than-generalizable code.
My question: is there a good, clean method for referencing local data files (text files, XML, images, etc.) while still taking advantage of the features of a heavyweight IDE?
It seems there are ways such as "debug in directory" and "local reference folder" systems, but I'm wondering if there's some general way people deal with this.
Thank you for any information or suggestion!
As for me, I'm always just either:
storing files in the project dir, and using a versioning system (svn, git) exclude those and only include the directories they're in
symlink the files, or whole directories, depending on the structure, into the project ; if you use relative symlinks instead of absolute ones, it makes it pretty easy for multiple people to have different files/content while still working on the same project over one repository. As it seems you're using windows (afaik visual-studio is windows only?), I think that newer windows versions should support symlinks as well, up from vista as far as I remember.
Edit: quick google search led me to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS_symbolic_link
I have seen, read and thought of different ways of using Workspaces (per project, per application (multi-asseted or not), per program language, per target (web-development, plugins,..), and so on) and I am still doubting what the best approach is.
Can anyone give a detailed, but not a page long insight into this?
This involves a lot of sub-questions, so to speak, and I don't know all the specific sub-questions I should ask, as I am sure I don't know all aspects of Eclipse (and Workspaces), but I'll try to give an example of what I am looking for:
What for?
What did the Eclipse development team expect it to be used for?
What do other/most people think?
What do you think?
... ?
Why?
Are there configuration conflicts vs. sharing merits?
Any filespace reasons?
Performance?
... ?
I am speaking of the minimum use-case for a developer that uses different languages and protocols, not necessarily all of them in one project (E.g. Php, Javascript and XML for some projects, C# for others, Java and SQL for still others, etc..)
Edit 2012-11-27: Don't get me wrong. I don't doubt the use of
Workspaces, I just want to use it as it is meant to be or otherwise if
anyone would think it better. So "what for?" means: What's the best use? And
"why?" actually targets on the "what for?", in other words: tell me the reasons
for your answer.
I'll provide you with my vision of somebody who feels very uncomfortable in the Java world, which I assume is also your case.
What it is
A workspace is a concept of grouping together:
a set of (somehow) related projects
some configuration pertaining to all these projects
some settings for Eclipse itself
This happens by creating a directory and putting inside it (you don't have to do it, it's done for you) files that manage to tell Eclipse these information. All you have to do explicitly is to select the folder where these files will be placed. And this folder doesn't need to be the same where you put your source code - preferentially it won't be.
Exploring each item above:
a set of (somehow) related projects
Eclipse seems to always be opened in association with a particular workspace, i.e., if you are in a workspace A and decide to switch to workspace B (File > Switch Workspaces), Eclipse will close itself and reopen. All projects that were associated with workspace A (and were appearing in the Project Explorer) won't appear anymore and projects associated with workspace B will now appear. So it seems that a project, to be open in Eclipse, MUST be associated to a workspace.
Notice that this doesn't mean that the project source code must be inside the workspace. The workspace will, somehow, have a relation to the physical path of your projects in your disk (anybody knows how? I've looked inside the workspace searching for some file pointing to the projects paths, without success).
This way, a project can be inside more than 1 workspace at a time. So it seems good to keep your workspace and your source code separated.
some configuration pertaining to all these projects
I heard that something, like the Java compiler version (like 1.7, e.g - I don't know if 'version' is the word here), is a workspace-level configuration. If you have several projects inside your workspace, and compile them inside of Eclipse, all of them will be compiled with the same Java compiler.
some settings for Eclipse itself
Some things like your key bindings are stored at a workspace-level, also. So, if you define that ctrl+tab will switch tabs in a smart way (not stacking them), this will only be bound to your current workspace. If you want to use the same key binding in another workspace (and I think you want!), it seems that you have to export/import them between workspaces (if that's true, this IDE was built over some really strange premises). Here is a link on this.
It also seems that workspaces are not necessarily compatible between different Eclipse versions. This article suggests that you name your workspaces containing the name of the Eclipse version.
And, more important, once you pick a folder to be your workspace, don't touch any file inside there or you are in for some trouble.
How I think is a good way to use it
(actually, as I'm writing this, I don't know how to use this in a good way, that's why I was looking for an answer – that I'm trying to assemble here)
Create a folder for your projects:
/projects
Create a folder for each project and group the projects' sub-projects inside of it:
/projects/proj1/subproj1_1
/projects/proj1/subproj1_2
/projects/proj2/subproj2_1
Create a separate folder for your workspaces:
/eclipse-workspaces
Create workspaces for your projects:
/eclipse-workspaces/proj1
/eclipse-workspaces/proj2
The whole point of a workspace is to group a set of related projects together that usually make up an application. The workspace framework comes down to the eclipse.core.resources plugin and it naturally by design makes sense.
Projects have natures, builders are attached to specific projects and as you change resources in one project you can see in real time compile or other issues in projects that are in the same workspace. So the strategy I suggest is have different workspaces for different projects you work on but without a workspace in eclipse there would be no concept of a collection of projects and configurations and after all it's an IDE tool.
If that does not make sense ask how Net Beans or Visual Studio addresses this? It's the same theme. Maven is a good example, checking out a group of related maven projects into a workspace lets you develop and see errors in real time. If not a workspace what else would you suggest? An RCP application can be a different beast depending on what its used for but in the true IDE sense I don't know what would be a better solution than a workspace or context of projects. Just my thoughts. - Duncan
Basically the scope of workspace(s) is divided in two points.
First point (and primary) is the eclipse it self and is related with the settings and metadata configurations (plugin ctr). Each time you create a project, eclipse collects all the configurations and stores them on that workspace and if somehow in the same workspace a conflicting project is present you might loose some functionality or even stability of eclipse it self.
And second (secondary) the point of development strategy one can adopt.
Once the primary scope is met (and mastered) and there's need for further adjustments regarding project relations (as libraries, perspectives ctr) then initiate separate workspace(s) could be appropriate based on development habits or possible language/frameworks "behaviors".
DLTK for examples is a beast that should be contained in a separate cage.
Lots of complains at forums for it stopped working (properly or not at all) and suggested solution was to clean the settings of the equivalent plugin from the current workspace.
Personally, I found myself lean more to language distinction when it comes to separate workspaces which is relevant to known issues that comes with the current state of the plugins are used. Preferably I keep them in the minimum numbers as this is leads to less frustration when the projects are become... plenty and version control is not the only version you keep your projects.
Finally, loading speed and performance is an issue that might come up if lots of (unnecessary) plugins are loaded due to presents of irrelevant projects.
Bottom line; there is no one solution to every one, no master blue print that solves the issue. It's something that grows with experience,
Less is more though!
Although I've used Eclipse for years, this "answer" is only conjecture (which I'm going to try tonight). If it gets down-voted out of existence, then obviously I'm wrong.
Oracle relies on CMake to generate a Visual Studio "Solution" for their MySQL Connector C source code. Within the Solution are "Projects" that can be compiled individually or collectively (by the Solution). Each Project has its own makefile, compiling its portion of the Solution with settings that are different than the other Projects.
Similarly, I'm hoping an Eclipse Workspace can hold my related makefile Projects (Eclipse), with a master Project whose dependencies compile the various unique-makefile Projects as pre-requesites to building its "Solution". (My folder structure would be as #Rafael describes).
So I'm hoping a good way to use Workspaces is to emulate Visual Studio's ability to combine dissimilar Projects into a Solution.
It's just a feature for structuring projects.
Obviously Eclipse designers tried to avoid having global settings for Eclipse and decided to put them into workspace.
Each Eclipse app depends on each workspace settings.
Is it a good decision? I think it's not so.
It lacks flexibility. It was naive to expect that global settings can be avoided.
It doesn't allow you to have single projects (it can be a surprise for Eclipse designers but it happens quite often).
But it still works.
Many people use it. Sometimes they suffer but more frequently everything is ok.
In our company we have a discussion whether to put project files into our Version Control System. What do you think? Consider an Eclipse project file for a C project that contain source and make files and other things. Would you put it into VCS?
If the project files meet the following criteria:
They only contain information for building the source quickly, checkout, commit and the basic routines (for developers)
Parts maybe for release can be separated from internal only (if you are a FOSS project or proprietary, for example)
They don't change anyone's IDE setup or personal preferences
They can be treated like source code for internal-only releases, and may have their own bugs and patches
I don't see a major reason why not. Makefiles/autotools defs usually go in the RCS (autotools inputs at least). Providing the data stored is relevant to all, and their machines (build output directories ...) give it a go
I'd recommend checking them in unless they contain absolute paths (some ancient IDEs like Borland C++ Builder do that), or - like Aiden Bell wrote - they contain IDE setup info.
For example: with Eclipse, .project and .classpath are safe. With Visual Studio, *.csproj and *.sln are safe (whereas *.suo is not).
Id recommend to allways check them in. It wont cost you anything, but sometimes you run into situations where you will be happy to check i.e. different settings of project files etc.
If you're using RCS to mean a general revision control system, then, yes, check source and make files in, and in general pretty much anything that you can't easily recreate from what you've got checked in.
If you're using RCS to mean rcs, then please, PLEASE upgrade to something better. SVN would be a good choice, or Git or something like that.
Putting development tools (compilers, IDEs, editors, ...) and runtime environments (jre, .net framework, interpreters, ...) under the version control has a couple of nice reasons. First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository. You don't have to have anything else. Second, the triple is surely version compatible as you once tested it. However, it has its own drawbacks. The main one is the big volume of large binary files that must be put under version control system. That may cause the VCS slower and the backup process harder. What's your idea?
Tools and dependencies actually used to compile and build the project, absolutely - it is very useful if you ever have to debug an issue or develop a fix for an older version and you've moved on to newer versions that aren't quite compatible with the old ones.
IDE's & editors no - ideally you're project should be buildable from a script so these would not be necessary. The generated output should still be the same regardless of what you used to edit the source.
I include a text (and thus easily diff-able) file in every project root called "How-to-get-this-project-running" that includes any and all things necessary, including the correct .net version and service packs.
Also for proprietry IDE's (e.g. Visual Studio), there can be licensing issues as this makes it difficult to manage who is using which pieces of software.
Edit:
We also used to store batch files that automatically checked out the source code automatically (and all dependencies) in source control. Developers just check out the "Setup" folder and run the batch scripts, instead of having to search the repository for appropriate bits and pieces.
What I find is very nice and common (in .Net projects I have experience with anyway) is including any "non-default install" dependencies in a lib or dependencies folder with source control. The runtime is provided by the GAC and kind of assumed.
First, you can easily compile/run your program just by checking out your repository.
Not true: it often isn't enough to just get/copy/check out a tool, instead the tool must also be installed on the workstation.
Personally I've seen libraries and 3rd-party components in the source version control system, but not the tools.
I keep all dependencies in a folder under source control named "3rdParty". I agree that this is very convinient and you can just pull down the source and get going. This really shouldnt affect the performance of the source control.
The only real draw back is that the initial size to pull down can be fairly large. In my situation anyone who pulls downt he code usually will run it also, so it is ok. But if you expect many people to pull down the source just to read then this can be annoying.
I've seen this done in more than one place where I worked. In all cases, I've found it to be pretty convenient.
Almost any IDE creates lots of files that have nothing to do with the application being developed, they are generated and mantained by the IDE so he knows how to build the application, where the version control repository is and so on.
Should those files be kept under version control along with the files that really have something to do with the aplication (source code, application's configuration files, ...)?
The things is: on some IDEs if you create a new project and then import it into the version-control repository using the version-control client/commands embedded in the IDE, then all those files are sent to the respitory. And I'm not sure that's right: what is two different developers working on the same project want to use two different IDEs?
I want to keep this question agnostic avoiding references to any particular IDE, programming language or version control system. So this question is not exactly the same as these:
SVN and binaries - but this talks about binaries and SVN
Do you keep your build tools in version control? - but this talks about build tools (e.g. putting the jdk under version control)
What project files shouldn’t be checked into SVN - but this talks about SVN and dll's
Do you keep your project files under version control? - very similar (haven't found it before), thanks VonC
Rules of thumb:
Include everything which has an influence on the build result (compiler options, file encodings, ASCII/binary settings, etc.)
Include everything to make it possible to open the project from a clean checkout and being able to compile/run/test/debug/deploy it without any further manual intervention
Don't include files which contain absolute paths
Avoid including personal preferences (tab size, colors, window positions)
Follow the rules in this order.
[Update] There is always the question what should happen with generated code. As a rule of thumb, I always put those under version control. As always, take this rule with a grain of salt.
My reasons:
Versioning generated code seems like a waste of time. It's generated right? I can get it back at a push of a button!
Really?
If you had to bite the bullet and generate the exact same version of some previous release without fail, how much effort would it be? When generating code, you not only have to get all the input files right, you also have to turn back time for the code generator itself. Can you do that? Always? As easy as it would be to check out a certain version of the generated code if you had put it under version control?
And even if you could, could you ever be sure that didn't miss something?
So on one hand, putting generated code under version control make sense since it makes it dead easy to do what VCS are meant for: Go back in time.
Also it makes it easy to see the differences. Code generators are buggy, too. If I fix a bug and have 150'000 files generated, it helps a lot when I can compare them to the previous version to see that a) the bug is gone and b) nothing else changed unexpectedly. It's the unexpected part which you should worry about. If you don't, let me know and I'll make sure you never work for my company ever :-)
The major pain point of code generators is stability. It doesn't do when your code generator just spits out a random mess of bytes every time you run (well, unless you don't care about quality). Code generators need to be stable and deterministic. You run them twice with the same input and the output must be identical down to least significant bit.
So if you can't check in generated code because every run of the generator creates differences that aren't there, then your code generator has a bug. Fix it. Sort the code when you have to. Use hash maps that preserve order. Do everything necessary to make the output non-random. Just like you do everywhere else in your code.
Generated code that I might not put under version control would be documentation. Documentation is somewhat of a soft target. It doesn't matter as much when I regenerate the wrong version of the docs (say, it has a few typos more or less). But for releases, I might do that anyway so I can see the differences between releases. Might be useful, for example, to make sure the release notes are complete.
I also don't check in JAR files. As I do have full control over the whole build and full confidence that I can get back any version of the sources in a minute plus I know that I have everything necessary to build it without any further manual intervention, why would I need the executables for? Again, it might make sense to put them into a special release repo but then, better keep a copy of the last three years on your company's web server to download. Think: Comparing binaries is hard and doesn't tell you much.
I think it's best to put anything under version control that helps developers to get started quickly, ignoring anything that may be auto-generated by an IDE or build tools (e.g. Maven's eclipse plugin generates .project and .classpath - no need to check these in). Especially avoid files that change often, that contain nothing but user preferences, or that conflict between IDEs (e.g. another IDE that uses .project just like eclipse does).
For eclipse users, I find it especially handy to add code style (.settings/org.eclipse.jdt.core.prefs - auto formatting on save turned on) to get consistently formatted code.
Everything that can be automatically generated from the source+configuration files should not be under the version control! It only causes problems and limitations (like the one you stated - using 2 different project files by different programmers).
Its true not only for IDE "junk files" but also for intermediate files (like .pyc in python, .o in c etc).
This is where build automation and build files come in.
For example, you can still build the project (the two developers will need the same build software obviously) but they then could in turn use two different IDE's.
As for the 'junk' that gets generated, I tend to ignore most if it. I know this is meant to be language agnostic but consider Visual Studio. It generates user files (user settings etc..) this should not be under source control.
On the other hand, project files (used by the build process) most certainly should. I should add that if you are on a team and have all agreed on an IDE, then checking in IDE specific files is fine providing they are global and not user specific and/or not needed.
Those other questions do a good job of explaining what should and shouldn't be checked into source control so I wont repeat them.
In my opinion it depends on the project and environment. In a company environment where everybody is using the same IDE it can make sense to add the IDE files to the repository. While this depends a bit on the IDE, as some include absolute paths to things.
For a project which is developed in different environments it doesn't make sense and will be pain in the long run as the project files aren't maintained by all developers and make it harder to find "relevant" things.
Anything that would be devastating if it were lost, should be under version control.
In my opinion, anything needed to build the project (code, make files, media, databases with required program info, etc) should be in repositories. I realise that especially for media/database files this is contriversial, but to me if you can't branch and then hit build the source control's not doing it's job. This goes double for distributed systems with cheap branch creation/merging.
Anything else? Store it somewhere different. Developers should choose their own working environment as much as possible.
From what I have been looking at with version control, it seems that most things should go into it - e.g. source code and so on. However, the problem that many VCS's run into is when trying to handle large files, typically binaries, and at times things like audio and graphic files. Therefore, my personal way to do it is to put the source code under version control, along with general small sized graphics, and leave any binaries to other systems of management. If it is a binary that I created myself using the build system of the IDE, then that can definitily be ignored, because it is going to be regenerated every build. For dependancy libraries, well this is where dependancy package managers come in.
As for IDE generated files (I am assuming these are ones that aren't generated during the build process, such as the solution files for Visual Studio) - well, I think it would depend on whether or not you are working alone. If you are working alone, then go ahead and add them - they will allow you to revert settings in the solution or whatever you make. Same goes for other non-solution like files as well. However, if you are collaborating, then my recomendation is no - most IDE generated files tend to be, well, user specific - aka they work on your machine, but not neccesarily on others. Hence, you may be better of not including IDE generated files in that case.
tl;dr you should put most things that relate to your program into version control, excluding dependencies (things like libraries, graphics and audio should be handled by some other dependancy management system). As for things directly generated by the IDE - well, it would depend on if you are working alone or with other people.