Related
I've got a (dirty) production installation of Simple Machines Forum (SMF 1.1.13). It was a clean install, once... about five years, twenty updates, and 40 mods ago. Not to mention the custom code that was patched directly into the code base. This started as a for-fun side project, and didn't have any code management practices at the get-go.
Now SMF 2 is (getting closer to) going live, and I want to upgrade. But without leaving the custom features behind.
Keep reading, this is a general software management question, not an SMF support question...
I'm trying to figure out the best way to port the custom features into the new code branch.
In some cases, the custom 1.1.x functionality will already exist in 2.0. Yay, no work for me!
In some cases, there will be mod packages versioned for 2.0, and I can just install them directly on a clean SMF 2 build. Yay, minimal work for me!
In some cases, the code port will be fairly straightforward between the two versions (e.g. a few small changes in queries or global variable construction). (I've ported a few features/mods back from 2.0 to 1.1.x, so I'm starting to get familiar with it.)
In some cases, I'm just going to have to redevelop the features mostly from scratch.
Those last two options are gonna be hard to manage.
Any suggestions on how to port a large number of changes from one branch to another?
When it's not my own in-house code, that is. Here's my initial plan:
Diff between a clean version of 1.1.x and my "dirty" production code
Map each line diff to a feature ("That code update is the custom tagging feature, gonna have to port it line by line, and that one over there is the gallery, I can probably install an updated mod.") This would be SOMUCHEASIER if there were a diff tool that generated a consolidated report, instead of having to go through scores of files one at a time. Google and SO searches didn't find a tool like that-- Is there one?
Install a clean 2.0 branch
Install the available updated mods
Roll up my sleeves and go through my diffs feature by feature (this? is why I need the consolidated diff report. It would be hell to do page by page.) and build them back in.
Any better ideas? (Pointers to release management info are welcome, though of course with the caveat that it's not actually my code so I have limited control.)
Otherwise? I fear my options are ditch the custom features (not really feasible) or stay on the old branch. Both suck. Help!
tl;dr: Point me to a diff tool that will do consolidated file-by-file diff reports for entire directories. And/or help me figure out an easier way to migrate my custom code.
Your plan is generally the most practical approach, although I would say that you're heading in the wrong direction by looking for code-level differences. With no version control over the project lifetime and with no concise record of applied changes, in examining differences at the code level you are looking for a level of detail that may not give you the information you need to apply the same changes to a new implementation.
Move away from thinking of code-level changes and consider application-level feature and behavioural changes. What features have your changes introduced? In what ways does your application now behave differently due to your changes?
You say that there have been many unversioned changes over a long period - you will fail to find all the changes no matter what tools you have at your disposal and you will still need to consider the feature and behavioural changes that exist to fully represent the same features and behaviours in any upgraded implementation.
You know your application well, you use it and you do appreciate the feature changes that you have introduced even if you may not realise this.
Install a vanilla 2.0 release
Apply all appropriate mods
Apply relevant styling
Use the new system, note the differences in behaviour and develop from this a set of required features
Your feature set does not need to be complete - don't stall at the stage of trying to figure out all required changes, this will take too long.
Apply features gathered from most recent feedback (ideally through revertable mods)
Note the differences in behaviour at develop from this a set of required features
Repeat
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.
What is the best version control system to implement with PowerBuilder 11.5?
If you have examples of how you have did branching/trunk/tags that would be awesome. We have tried to wrap our heads around it a few times and always run into problems because we use shared libraries such as PFC/PFE in multiple applications.
Right now we are only using PBNative, and it sucks.
The Agent SVN is a MS-SCCI Subversion plug-in works with PowerBuilder.
Here is a link that describes how to setup Agent SVN to work with PowerBuilder and Subversion.
We currently use Perforce and it's P4SCC plugin, which works very well. In fact, I'm sure I read somewhere that the guys at Sybase who write PowerBuilder, actually use Perforce themselves.
So, to be fair, let's start out by saying that while you're asking about version control, PBNative is source control. If you compare something that is intended to have more features than just keep two developers from editing the same piece of source, then yes, PBNative will suck. The Madone SL may be an incredible bicycle, but if you're trying to take a couple of laps around an Indy track, it will suck.
"Best" is a pretty subjective word. There are lots of features available in version control and configuration management tools. You can get tons of features, but you'll pay through the nose. StarTeam has some nice features like being able to trace a client change request or bug report all the way through to the changed code, and being able to link in a customized diff tool (which is particularly useful in PB). Then again, if cost is your key criteria rather than features, there are lots of free options that will get the job done. As long as the tool supports the Microsoft SCC interface, you should be OK.
There is a relatively active NNTP newsgroup that focuses on source control with PowerBuilder, which you can also access via the web. You can probably find some already-posted opinions there.
Many years ago I used Starteam to control PB applications. PowerBuilder needless to say is an outdated bear, and it has to export each and every object from its "libraries" into source control.
Currently our legacy PB apps have its libraries saved whole into Subversion, without any support for diff's etc.
We use Visual SourceSafe. We don't use PFC, but we do have libraries that are shared among several projects. Till now, each project was developed separately from the others, and so the shared libraries were duplicated. To have them synchronized, they were all shared at the VSS level. Lately we've reorganized our sources so all projects are near each other, and there's only one instance of the shared libraries.
VSS is definitively not the best source control system, to say the least, but it integrates into PB without the need of any bridges. PB has an inherent problem working with source control, so it probably won't make a very difference working with one instead of the other (at least from the PB point of view).
Now, on a personal note, I'd like to say PB 11.5 is a piece of sh*t. It constantly crashes, full of unbelievable UI nuisance and just brings productivity to its knees. It's probably the worst IDE ever created. Stay away if possible.
FYI: The new PB12 (PB.NET) will integrate with SCC systems so you can easily choose which source control system that you want to use. Since we basically have dropped PBLs (they are now directories) files can be checked in/out individually - even with a plain vanilla editor since files are now normal (unicode) text files.
StarTeam integrates so beautifully with the PB IDE. I used that combination at my previous company (PB9 and ST5.x) for several years. You should be managing your code at the object level - don't log the entire PBL into ST...
If you're having problems with that setup, hit me up offline. phoran at sybase dot com.
We use Merant Version Manager for older projects and TFS for newer work. The only issue we have is that TFS does not support keyword expansion and changing the 'read the flowerbox comments' attitude people have. Some folks are nervous about losing the inline versioning history.
We use StarTeam and have been very pleased with it. It combines bug tracking with version control. Unfortunately though we don't store our files on the object level. We just store the PBL files directly in source control. Anything that supports the SCC interface theoretically should work correctly in PowerBuilder.
PB9: We used PVCS but had stability problems with pbl corruption and also problems co-existing with later versions of Crystal Reports (dll conflict) so now we use PB9 with Dynamsoft's Source Anywhere Standalone. This system is more primitive; it is missing the more advanced features for promotion levels and for pulling out an older milestone version of all objects to make a patch build.
What we are looking for now is something which will allow more advanced "change management", to support promotion levels at the change level (rather than at the object level). Would it be better to use perforce, starteam, or (harvest change manager + HarPB), or something else? Any advice on these combinations would be greatly appreciated.
You can always use Plastic SCM with PowerBuilder through SCC. Plastic is pretty advanced in terms of graphics, tools, replica and so on, so it's always a good choice to keep in mind.
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.
We need to regularly synchronize many dozens of binary files (project executables and DLLs) between many developers at several different locations, so that every developer has an up to date environment to build and test at. Due to nature of the project, updates must be done often and on-demand (overnight updates are not sufficient). This is not pretty, but we are stuck with it for a time.
We settled on using a regular version (source) control system: put everything into it as binary files, get-latest before testing and check-in updated DLL after testing.
It works fine, but a version control client has a lot of features which don't make sense for us and people occasionally get confused.
Are there any tools better suited for the task? Or may be a completely different approach?
Update:
I need to clarify that it's not a tightly integrated project - more like extensible system with a heap of "plugins", including thrid-party ones. We need to make sure those modules-plugins works nicely with recent versions of each other and the core. Centralised build as was suggested was considered initially, but it's not an option.
I'd probably take a look at rsync.
Just create a .CMD file that contains the call to rsync with all the correct parameters and let people call that. rsync is very smart in deciding what part of files need to be transferred, so it'll be very fast even when large files are involved.
What rsync doesn't do though is conflict resolution (or even detection), but in the scenario you described it's more like reading from a central place which is what rsync is designed to handle.
Another option is unison
You should look into continuous integration and having some kind of centralised build process. I can only imagine the kind of hell you're going through with your current approach.
Obviously that doesn't help with the keeping your local files in sync, but I think you have bigger problems with your process.
Building the project should be a centralized process in order to allow for better control soon your solution will be caos in the long run. Anyway here is what I'd do.
Create the usual repositories for
source files, resources,
documentation, etc for each project.
Create a repository for resources.
There will be the latest binary
versions for each project as well as
any required resources, files, etc.
Keep a good folder structure for
each project so developers can
"reference" the files directly.
Create a repository for final buidls
which will hold the actual stable
release. This will get the stable
files, done in an automatic way (if
possible) from the checked in
sources. This will hold the real
product, the real version for
integration testing and so on.
While far from being perfect you'll be able to define well established protocols. Check in your latest dll here, generate the "real" versión from latest source here.
What about embedding a 'what' string in the executables and libraries. Then you can synchronise the desired list of versions with a manifest.
We tend to use CVS id strings as a part of the what string.
const char cvsid[] = "#(#)INETOPS_filter_ip_$Revision: 1.9 $";
Entering the command
what filter_ip | grep INETOPS
returns
INETOPS_filter_ip_$Revision: 1.9 $
We do this for all deliverables so we can see if the versions in a bundle of libraries and executables match the list in a associated manifest.
HTH.
cheers,
Rob
Subversion handles binary files really well, is pretty fast, and scriptable. VisualSVN and TortoiseSVN make dealing with Subversion very easy too.
You could set up a folder that's checked out from Subversion with all your binary files (that all developers can push and update to) then just type "svn update" at the command line, or use TortoiseSVN: right click on the folder, click "SVN Update" and it'll update all the files and tell you what's changed.