My eclipse if loaded with lot of code (12-15 projects). Now when I switch from one git branch to another, eclipse starts rebuilding entire work-space consuming roughly 40 mins :( Is there any way I can dictate git to build only classes where it find changes.
That is a very simple problem. In Eclipse you have normally all projects open at the same time. That need a lot of Resources because when you make changes Eclipse goes over the complete tree and check if there are changes or not.
First solution is to close all other projects and open only that project you're working in.
http://www.tutorialspoint.com/eclipse/eclipse_close_project.htm
Our the second one is to use another IDE with less overhead and a better performance. I don't write here some good IDEs otherwise we have here a Shitstorm because everybody mean that his IDE is better :D and it depends on your programming language.
Quoting the Git FAQ on Why isn't Git preserving modification time on files? here (please make sure to also read the non-quoted part of the FAQ):
Git sets the current time as the timestamp on every file it modifies, but only those. The other files are left untouched, which means build tools will be able to depend on modification time and rebuild properly.
So while Git does not maintain the modified time for files that change between branches, it does maintain the modified time for files that do not change. That said, you probably simply have a lot of changed files between your branches.
Related
Requirement
make history for web text/code source files.
login-worker is only me, i.e personal usage.
automatically save history for each updated files(no require at once but at least once per week)
It must be a simple way to start and work.
I have 3 work places so need to do async files.
(not must but hopefully for future working environment) Any other non-engineer can also understand the location of history file and can see it easily.
Current way:
I made history folder the day, download files in there for edit, copy files when I edit/creat new one.
Advantage of the current way:
Very quick and simple, no need to do additional task to make history
Disadvantage of the current way:
Messy. Whenever day I work, I create a new history folder to keep downloaded files, so that it is messy in Finder(or windows explore).
Also, I don't have a way to Doing Async files for sure with in other places.
I tested to use GIT before, I had Thought GIT automatically save files I edit and save with a editor, but that was not the case. Also GIT is too complicated to use/start. If you recommend GIT, you need to show me ways to deal with the problem I had, for instance, simple GIT GUI with limited options without merging/project/branch etc because of personal usage for maintaining just one website.
Do you know any way to do version control personally and simply?
Thanks.
Suppose you entered <form ...> in your HTML—without the closing tag—and saved the file; do you really think the commit created by our imaginary VCS picked up that file's update event would have any sense?
What I mean, is that as with writing programs¹,
the history of source code changes are there for humans to read,
and for that matter, a good history graph should really read like a prose:
each commit should be atomic in the sense it comprises one (small) but
internally integral feature or fixes a bug, and had to be properly annotated
so that the intent of the change captured by that commit is clear.
What you want instead is just some dumb stream of changes purely for backup purposes.
Well, if you're fully aware of the repercussions (the most glaring one is that the generated history is completely useless for doing development on
the project and can only be used for rollbacks in case of "oopsies"),
there are two ways to go:
Some IDEs (namely, Eclipse) save a backup copy of each file they manage
on each save—thus providing your with such a rollback functionality w/o
using any VCS.
Script around any VCS you like: say, on Linux,
you start something like inotifywait telling it to watch your
project's root directory, recurvively, for write events on files,
read whatever the tool prints to its stdout when these events happen,
and for each event, call to your VCS of choice to record a new commit
with these changes.
¹ «Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.» — Abelson & Sussman, "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs", preface to the first edition.
I strongly suggest you to have a deeper look at git.
It may looks difficult at the beginning, but you should spend some time learning it, that's all. All the problems above could be easily solved if you spend some time to learn the basics. There is also a nice "tutorial" on github on how to use git, no need to install anything: https://try.github.io/levels/1/challenges/1.
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've been all over google and SO looking for someone who has asked this question, but am coming up completely empty. I'll apologize in advance for the lengthy round-about way of asking the question. (If I was able to figure out how to encapsulate the problem, maybe I would have been successful in finding an answer.)
How are large projects managed in Mercurial, when the act of building / compiling generates hundreds of temporary files in order to create the end result?? Is .hgignore the only answer?
Example Scenario:
You have a project that wants to use some open source package for some feature, and needs to compile from source. So you go get the package. un-.tgz it and then slap it into its own Mercurial repository so you can then start tracking changes. Then you make all your changes, and run a build.
You test your end result, are happy with the results and are ready to commit back to your local clone of the repository. So you do an hg status to check your changes prior to committing The hg status results cause you to immediately start using all those words that would make your mother ashamed — because you now have screens and screens of "build cruft".
For the sake of argument say this package is MySQL or Apache: something that
you don't control and will be changing regularly,
leaves a whole lot of cruft behind in a whole lot of places, and
there is no guarantee the cruft won't change each time you get a new version from the external source.
Wow what? The particular project causing this angst is going to be worked on by multiple developers in multiple physical locations, and so needs to be as straightforward as possible. If there is too much involved they're not going to do it, and we'll have a bigger problem on our hands. (Sadly, some old dogs are not keen on learning new tricks...)
One proposed solution was that they would just have to commit everything locally before doing a make, so they have a "clean slate" they would then have to clone from to actually do the build in. That got shot down as (a) too many steps, and (b) not wanting to cruft up the history with a bunch of "time to build now" changesets.
Someone else has proposed that all the cruft just be committed into the Mercurial repository. I am strongly against that because then the next time around those files will turn up as "modified" and therefore be included in the changeset's file list.
We can't possibly be the only people who have run into this problem. So what is the "right" solution? Is our only recourse to try create a massively intelligent .hginore file? This makes me uneasy, because if I tell Mercurial to "ignore everything in this directory I haven't already told you about", then what happens if the next applied patch adds files into that ignored directory? (Mercurial will never see that new file, right?)
Hopefully this is not a completely stupid question with an obvious answer. I've compiled things from source many times before, but have never needed to apply version control on top of that. Plus we're new to Mercurial.
Two options:
The best option is to do an out of tree build, if you can. This is a build where you place the object files outside of the source tree. Some build systems, such as CMake, support this directly. For other systems, you need to be lucky since the upstream project must have added support for this in their Makefile or similar.
A more general option is to tell Mercurial to ignore specific types of files, not entire directories. This works well in my experience.
To test the second option, I wanted to compile Apache. However, it requires APR, so I tested with that instead. After checking in a clean apr-1.3.8.tar.bz2 I did ./configure; make and looked at the output of hg status. The first few pattens were easy:
syntax: glob
*~
*.o
*.lo
*.la
*.so
.libs/*
The remaining new files look like they are specific files generated by the build process. It's easy to add them too:
% hg status --unknown --no-status >> .hgignore
That also added .hgignore since I hadn't yet scheduled it for addition. Removing that I ended up with this .hgignore file:
syntax: glob
*~
*.o
*.lo
*.la
*.so
.libs/*
.make.dirs
Makefile
apr-1-config
apr-config.out
apr.exp
apr.pc
build/apr_rules.mk
build/apr_rules.out
build/pkg/pkginfo
config.log
config.nice
config.status
export_vars.c
exports.c
include/apr.h
include/arch/unix/apr_private.h
libtool
test/Makefile
test/internal/Makefile
I consider this a quite robust way to go about this in Mercurial or any other revision control system for that matter.
The best solution would be to fix the build process so that it behaves in a 'nice' manner.. namely allowing you to specify some separate directory to store intermediate files in (that could then be completely ignored via a very simple .hgignore entry... or not even within the version-controlled directory structure at all.
For what it's worth, I've found that in this situation a smart .hgignore is the only solution that has worked for me so far. With the inclusion of regular expression support, it's very powerful, but tricky, too, since a pattern that is cruft in one directory may well be source in another.
At least you can check in the .hgignore and share it with your developers. That way the work is only done once.
[Edit] At least, however, it's possible -- as noted above by Martin Geisler -- to have full path specifications in your .hgignore file; you can, therefore, have test/Makefile in the .hgignore and still have Mercurial notice a new test2/Makefile
His process for creating the file should give you almost what you want, and you can tune it from there.
One option you have is to clean your working directory after verifying a build.
make clean
hg status
Of course you may not want to clean your project if it takes more than a few minutes to build.
If the files you want to track are already known to hg, you can hgignore everything. Then you need to use hg import to add patch, and not just use the patch command (since hg needs to be aware if some new files should be tracked).
How about a shell (or whatever) script that walks your build directory recursively, finds every file created after your build process started running, and moves all these files (of course, you can specify the exceptions) into a cruft_dir subdirectory. Then you can just put cruft_dir/* in .hgignore.
EDIT: I forgot to add, but this is fairly obvious, that this shell script runs automatically as soon as your build finishes. Maybe it's even called as the last command in your Makefile/ant/whatever file.
I understand the basic concept of a branch and merge. All of the explanations I've found talk about branching your entire trunk to create a branch project and working on it and then merging it back. Is it possible to branch a subset of a project?
I think an example will help me explain best what I want to do. Suppose I have an application with ten files file0 through file10. All files are interdependent and to be able to test any one file all the others need to be included in the build. I want to work on file0 but don't need to make changes to file1 through file10. Can I branch file0 so changes committed to file0 will update something like myrepos/branches/a-branch/file0 but all the other files in my working copy will simply be from the trunk?
The reason I want to do this is that I'm working on a huge j2ee application with tens of thousands of files and it seems like branching the entire thing will take a really long time. Also, I'm using eclipse with subclipse (and I could be wrong about this) but it seem like if I branch a project in eclipse then I will have to set up a new eclipse project to point to the branch. Unfortunately importing this particular project from SVN to eclipse takes several hours due to the size of the application. It isn't realistic for me to spend this much time.
I suppose that I could have the concepts wrong. Perhaps branching an entire project doesn't require a new working copy at all?
Thanks for any light shed on this issue.
Branching an entire (even) very large tree in Subversion is a very cheap operation, which does lazy (O(1) time) file copying.
You don't necessarily have to change your entire working copy to work on just one changed file. You can use svn switch to switch one file or one directory in your working copy to be a checked out version of the file on the branch.
In Subversion, making a branch is simply making a copy of a hierarchy of directories. Therefore, you can branch a subset, but only if that subset can be defined by a hierarchy of directories.
Can I
branch file0 so changes committed to
file0 will update something like
myrepos/branches/a-branch/file0 but
all the other files in my working copy
will simply be from the trunk?
To answer this question: No, you can't branch a single file. However, what I think you want to do instead is to make a branch and work on file0 there. As you make changes to trunk files, you simply merge them into your branch where you're working on file0.
In this way, you'll always have the latest information from trunk, which will let you test the file0 changes independently of trunk. Then you can use svn switch to move your "file lens" between the trunk and the branch (but beware, Eclipse may complain about such shenanigans).
svn branching is based on lazy copy mechanism, so you can branch safely your all project: that would not take long.
As mentioned in the the question "How do I branch an individual file in SVN?", you could branch a subset, but I believe this would be dangerous with the svn:merginfo properties mechanism: it works better it that property is set from the root of the project.
Branching in SVN is an O(1) operation. Also, as SVN internally employs lazy copying, you only pay a space penalty for what you change.
So if you are unsure, why not go ahead and branch the whole project?
(As quark mentioned, one problem with branching big projects is that, if you checkout several branches/the trunk in parallel, this might take a lot of local disk space.)
This may be somewhat obscure but I've been happily using Eclipse + Perfoce/P4WSAD for over a year now and have thus far been unable to figure this out myself. I often start a build and let it run in the background while I continue to edit source files. The problem occurs when I try to edit a file that is not checked out from perforce. In this case, eclipse pops up a modal dialog box that forces me to choose between either canceling the build or canceling the check-out operation. So usually I just cancel the build, check out the file, and start the build up again, but this is very time consuming. Is it possible to get eclipse to allow check-outs during builds?
I don't know, but you may want to check with Perforce on this (as this might be something specific to their plugin rather than something in the team su8pport), I never have this problem with SVN or CVS (though maybe my builds are not big enough). Also from what I understand the first generation Perforce plugin had major problems, but they have a new one that's much better. You should make sure you are on the new one.
A simple solution (although it can be disk-space consuming) is to have a building branch on which you merge any of your recently committed development (simple merges with no conflicts: you overwrite what is on the build branch).
Another eclipse project references that build branch sources and builds it whenever you want, while you edit the sources of your first original project.