At my workplace, I have managed to install and use locally Tortoise svn, to easier trak the implementation of the tools. For the new projects, it's easy because I start from scratch with the version control.
Now, for the past projects, I have copied the entire folder to keep a versioning.
It looks like this:
TempProject 20.07.2017
TempProject 21.07.2017
TempProject 22.07.2017
....
Is there a possibility to integrate all this changes with Tortoise?
Meaning , I want to have a base, than commits, for each version
Thank you...
I have managed to solve it.
I copied, one by one, the content from each folder (TempProject 22.07.2017 etc.) into my working copy folder, then I opened the project and committed the changes.
Maybe it's not the most efficient method, but at least it wasn't very complicated
Related
I'm currently working on a team project in Java, using Eclipse to commit changes I make to an SVN repository. To make things safer, I actually have two versions of the Project on Eclipse: One on which I work directly, and one into which I'm supposed to copy changes made after testing. The latter is then to be committed and shared with the rest of the team.
I've done some work on the second version of the Project. Now, I want to copy all that into the first version. So, how do I synchronize two Projects on Eclipse? Copy all changes from one onto the other?
If you are using SVN, why are you keeping duplicate copies? SVN does this for you. You check-out (or update, if you already have the project), then make your modifications, test them, and (assuming they test correctly) commit. There is no reason NOT to work directly on your working copy.
If you mess up, you just use SVN to revert your changes to the last good state.
Of course if you are making major changes that could impact the whole application while at the same time doing some work on current tickets you might look into using SVN branches.
I am about to start participating in the development of a medium-sized project (~50k lines) that was until now written by a single person, and not versioned; as a result folders are cluttered with different versions of the same file (named file1, file2, file3, etc.).
I proposed to start using a VCS for it (a priori Mercurial, which is the only one I've ever used -- for my personal projects --, but I'm open to suggestions), so I'm taking any good ideas as to how to "start" the repository. E.g., should I make an initial commit with all the existing files, and immediately make a new commit with the unused files removed? Or something else?
(constructive remarks on mercurial vs bazaar vs git vs whatever are also welcome.)
Thanks for your tips.
E.g., should I make an initial commit with all the existing files, and immediately make a new commit with the unused files removed?
If the size of the repository is not a concern, then yes, that is a good starting point. Otherwise you can just commit what's actually used, and go from there.
As for which system, all DVCSes stick to the same core principles. Which one you pick is entirely subjective — the only way to truly know which one you like is to try each one.
I would say use what you are the most comfortable with and meets your needs. As far as where to start, I personally would seed the repo with the current source as is, that way you can verify that everything builds and runs as expected. you can make this initial seed a branch. That way you can always go back to your starting point before refactoring.
My approach to this was:
create a Mercurial repository in the existing project folder ("existing")
commit all project files to "existing"
create an empty repository in what a different location ("new")
As files are tested and QA'd (this was necessary because there was so much dross in "existing") pull them from "everything" to "new".
Once files had been pulled into "new"; delete the corresponding files from "existing". If access is needed to these files while the migration is under way, push them back from "new" to "existing".
This gave me the advantage of putting everything under some sort of control for recovery purposes, control over introducing the project to the DVCS. Eventually the existing project folder became completely tested and approved for the project moving forward. At this point the "everything" directory could be deleted or changed into a working folder; and "new" became the actual project folder.
I think Mercurial is a good choice. Lightweight, fast, very simple to use and well-integrated with Windows (if that's the platform you're dealing with).
I would probably get rid of all the clutter before the first commit. Delete everything you don't care about, run all the necessary tests and only then do the commit.
Yes, I'm dead set against the 0-day cluttering of repos.
Granted, a 50K SLOC project isn't very big, but if you commit files you already know you won't need, they will make your repo slightly bigger.
Also, remember to check that the tree doesn't contain large binary files. If it does, get rid of them if at all possible.
I work on a large project where all the source files are stored in a version control except the project files. This was the lead developer's decision. His reasoning was:
Its to time consuming to reconcile the differences among developers' working directories.
It allows developers to work independently until their changes are stable
Instead, a developer initially gets a copy of a fellow developer's project files. Then when new files are added each developer notifies all the rest about the change. This strikes me as far more time consuming in the long run.
In my opinion the supposed benefits of not tracking changes to the project files are outweighed by the danger. In addition to references to its needed source files each project file has configuration settings that would be very time consuming and error prone to reproduce if it became corrupted or there was a hardware failure. Some of them have source code embedded in them that would be nearly impossible to recover.
I tried to convince the lead that both of his reasons can be accomplished by:
Agreeing on a standard folder structure
Using relative paths in the project files
Using the version control system more effectively
But so far he's unwilling to heed my suggestions. I checked the svn log and discovered that each major version's history begins with an Add. I have a feeling he doesn't know how to use the branching feature at all.
Am I worrying about nothing or are my concerns valid?
Your concerns are valid. There's no good reason to exclude project files from the repository. They should absolutely be under version control. You'll need to standardize on a directory structure for automated builds as well, so your lead is just postponing the inevitable.
Here are some reasons to check project (*.*proj) files into version control:
Avoid unnecessary build breaks. Relying on individual developers to notify the rest of the team every time the add, remove or rename a source file is not a sustainable practice. There will be mistakes and you will end up with broken builds and your team will waste valuable time trying to determine why the build broke.
Maintain an authoritative source configuration. If there are no project files in the repository, you don't have enough information there to reliably build the solution. Is your team planning to deliver a build from one of your developer's machines? If so, which one? The whole point of having a source control repository is to maintain an authoritative source configuration from which you build and deliver releases.
Simplify management of your projects. Having each team member independently updating their individual copies of your various project files gets more complicated when you introduce project types that not everyone is familiar with. What happens if you need to introduce a WiX project to generate an MSI package or a Database project?
I'd also argue that the two points made in defense of this strategy of not checking in project files are easily refuted. Let's take a look at each:
Its to time consuming to reconcile the differences among developers' working directories.
Source configurations should always be setup with relative paths. If you have hard coded paths in your source configuration (project files, resource files, etc.) then you're doing it wrong. Choosing to ignore the problem is not going to make it go away.
It allows developers to work independently until their changes are stable
No, using version control lets developers work in isolation until their changes are stable. If you each continue to maintain your own separate copies of the project files, as soon as someone checks in a change that references a class in a new source file, you've broken everyone on the team until they stop what they're doing and carefully update their project files. Compare that experience with just "getting latest" from source control.
Generally, a project checked out of SVN should be working, or there should be tools included to make it work (e.g. autogen.sh). If the project file is missing or you need knowledge about which files should be in the project, there is something missing.
Automatically generated files should not be in SVN, as it is pointless to track the changes to these.
Project files with relative path belong under source control.
Files that don't: For example in .Net, I would not put the .suo (user options) web.config (or app.config under source control. You may have developers using different connection strings, etc.
In the case of web.config, I like to put a web.config.example in. That way you copy the file to web.config upon initial checkout and tweak what settings you'd like. If you add something that needs to be added to all web.config, you merge those lines into the .example version and notify the team to merge that into their local version.
I think it depends on the IDE and configuration of the project. Some IDEs have hard-coded absolute paths and that's a real problem with multiple developers working on the same code with different local copies and configurations. Avoid absolute path references to libraries, for example, if you can.
In Eclipse (and Java), it's fine to commit .project and .classpath files (so long as the classpath doesn't have absolute references). However, you may find that using tools like Maven can help having some independence from the IDE and individual settings (in which case you wouldn't need to commit .project, .settings and .classpath in Eclipse since m2eclipse would re-create them for you automatically). This might not apply as well to other languages/environments.
In addition, if I need to reference something really specific to my machine (either configuration or file location), it tend to have my own local branch in Git which I rebase when necessary, committing only the common parts to the remote repository. Git diff/rebase works well: it tends to be able to work out the diffs even if the local changes affect files that have been modified remotely, except when those changes conflict, in which case you get the opportunity to merge the changes manually.
That's just retarded. With a set up like that, I can have a perfectly working project containing files that are subtly different from everyone else. Imagine the havoc this would cause if someone accidentally propagates this mess into QA and everyone is trying to figure out what's going on. Imagine the catastrophe that would ensue if it ever got released to the production environment...!
I have a folder where I keep checked-out version from Aptana Subversive SVN plugin. I have another folder where the checked-out copy from Eclipse resides. Both, Aptana & Eclipse, are using the same repository. Though the repository is the same, but I am using two different working folders. Sometimes I use Eclipse to work with the same set of files in the repository and sometimes I use Aptana.
I want a tool that can synchronize the two working folders automatically. Is there any free tool?
Actually, SVN is the tool to do just that. If you fight SVN, you will run into trouble, because you might not have both working copies updated to the same the same revision, the merge tool messes up the hidden .svn folders and whatnot.
Why do you think you need to manually synchronize those two working copies? If you want to work on both simultaneously without disrupting other's work because you keep checking in half-baked things, consider working on a branch. Doing so, you make use of SVN, which was designed to keep two working copies in sync. If you're done with whatever you're doing, merge that branch into the trunk (or whatever branch you were working at) and throw it away.
If you feel like all this checking in might make your repository become too big, get a bigger disk to store it on. The very first time you or that tool messes up manual merging, it would have payed off. If you're afraid of bumping SVN's revision count without doing actual work, get a grip.
Araxis Merge has automated merge.
Disclaimer: I'm stuck on TFS and I hate it.
My source control structure looks like this:
/dev
/releases
/branches
/experimental-upgrade
I branched from dev to experimental-upgrade and didn't touch it. I then did some more work in dev and merged to experimental-upgrade. Somehow TFS complained that I had changes in both source and target and I had to resolve them. I chose to "Copy item from source branch" for all 5 items.
I check out the experimental-upgrade to a local folder and try to open the main solution file in there. TFS prompts me:
"Projects have recently been added to this solution. Would you like to get them from source control?
If I say yes it does some stuff but ultimately comes back failing to load a handful of the projects. If I say no I get the same result.
Comparing my sln in both branches tells me that they are equal.
Can anyone let me know what I'm doing wrong? This should be a straightforward branch/merge operation...
TIA.
UPDATE:
I noticed that if I click "yes" on the above dialog, the projects are downloaded to the $/ root of source control... (i.e. out of the dev & branches folders)
If I open up the solution in the branch and remove the dead projects and try to re-add them (by right-clicking sln, add existing project, choose project located in the branch folder, it gives me the error...
Cannot load the project c:\sandbox\my_solution\proj1\proj1.csproj, the file has been removed or deleted. The project path I was trying to add is this: c:\sandbox\my_solution\branches\experimental-upgrade\proj1\proj1.csproj
What in the world is pointing these projects outside of their local root? The solution file is identical to the one in the dev branch, and those projects load just fine. I also looked at the vspscc and vssscc files but didn't find anything.
Ideas?
#Ben
You can actually do a full delete in TFS, but it is highly not recommended unless you know what you are doing. You have to do it from the command line with the command tf destroy
tf destroy [/keephistory] itemspec1 [;versionspec]
[itemspec2...itemspecN] [/stopat:versionspec] [/preview]
[/startcleanup] [/noprompt]
Versionspec:
Date/Time Dmm/dd/yyyy
or any .Net Framework-supported format
or any of the date formats of the local machine
Changeset number Cnnnnnn
Label Llabelname
Latest version T
Workspace Wworkspacename;workspaceowner
Just before you do this make sure you try it out with the /preview. Also everybody has their own methodology for branching. Mine is to branch releases, and do all development in the development or root folder. Also it sounded like branching worked fine for you, just the solution file was screwed up, which may be because of a binding issue and the vssss file.
#Nick: No changes have been made to this just yet. I may have to delete it and re-branch (however you really can't fully delete in TFS)
And I have to disagree... branching is absolutely a good practice for experimental changes. Shelving is just temporary storage that will get backed up if I don't want to check in yet. But this needs to be developed while we develop real features.
Without knowing more about your solution setup I can't be sure. But, if you have any project references that could explain it. Because you have the "experimental-upgrade" subfolder under "branches" your relative paths have changed.
This means when VS used to look for your referenced projects in ..\..\project\whatever it now has to look in ..\..\..\project\whatever. Note the extra ..\
To fix this you have to re-add your project references. I haven't found a better way. You can either remove them and re-add them, or go to the properties window and change the path to them, then reload them. Either way, you'll have to redo your references to them from any projects.
Also, check your working folders to make sure that it didn't download any of your projects into the wrong folders. This can happen sometimes...
A couple of things. Are the folder structures the same? Can you delete and readd the project references successfully?
If you create a solution and then manually add all of the projects, does that work. (That may not be feasable - we have solutions with over a hundred projects).
One other thing (and it may be silly) - after you did the branch, did you commit it? I'm wondering if you branched and didn't check it in, and then merged, and then when you tried to check-in then, TFS was mighty confused.
#Kevin:
This means when VS used to look for your referenced projects in ....\project\whatever it now has to look in ......\project\whatever. Note the extra ..\
You may be on to something here, however it doesn't explain why some projects load and others do not. I haven't found a correlation between them yet.
I think I'll try to re-add the projects and see if that works.
#Cory:
I think that's what I'm going to try... I have about 20 projects and 8 or so aren't loading. The folder structures are identical from root... ie: there aren't any references outside of DEV.