Please excuse a newbie question, but I've always used SVN and more recently, Git. Just now am touching TFS for the first time.
If I have two different machines that I work on regularly, can I safely keep the project files in sync using something like Dropbox/Sugarsync/Skydrive?
Are there any pros/cons to be aware of?
(I know that some of you might ask something like why not just checkout on the other machine. Just trying to save a step. I want to just pick up the other machine and do what I need to do without having to check out anything.)
TFS workspaces contain information about the machine name and user that created them, however if you're using local workspaces and you're not putting any server-side locks on files then I suppose you could sync them via dropbox and it should probably work just fine.
That said, I'd never recommend it.
You're not only going to sync all your code but also all the binaries that you're producing each and every time you compile, plus you won't have any change history between machines and you need to keep monitoring the drop box app to make sure things have synced fully before switching machines.
If you want to move changes between two machines I'd recommend using shelvesets. It only takes a few seconds to do and you'll have a more explicit update process between machines. You can be sure of what is happening in your code on each machine and you have an implicit rollback point if you realise you put something in the shelveset you didn't want.
Related
I'm working with a couple of student interns, showing them proof-of-concepts.
The amount of code we are writing is extremely small - snippets. I don't have to worry about version control or branches.
What I'm looking for is the simplest html editor for two people to be sharing a single document, not at the same time. In other words, it's ok if I totally overwrite his change if we are both making changes at the same time. In fact, that's preferred!
If we were on a local machine, I could use Notepad++. But since the code is on my VPS, then we are making changes in Dreamweaver and pushing changes up. That's too complicated because I make a change and he doesn't get the change unless he downloads it. We need to make the changes directly on the server with no intermediary steps. And when I make a change to his document, it reloads on his screen.
It needs to be as simple as two people using Notepad++ to change a file on a networked drive.
Remote Desktop only allows 1 person to remote in at a time.
Hmm... I wonder if that's really a restriction or if I could increase the number of concurrent users.
Hmm... I wonder if I could add my VPS drive as a networked drive? That would be slick...
It seems rather pointless to have everybody creating the same client for a project in Perforce, so, is there any one one could create a "public" client in Perforce from where everybody could sync from?
Edit: I meant clients like the ones you create in Perforce from a client spec
It's easier to understand the architecture, I believe, if you use the term 'workspace' rather than 'client'. Perforce applications manage files in a designated area of your local disk, called your workspace. As the name implies, your workspace is where you do most of your work. You can have more than one client workspace, even on the same workstation.
Since two different users are generally working independently, on separate workstations or laptops, they each need their own copy of the code, and they each need their own workspace so that they can control when they sync up with the changes in the server.
If you and I try to share a single copy of the code, on a single workstation, we'll find ourselves quickly confused about whose changes are whose; it's much easier for us to work independently, and to merge our changes as separate submissions to the server.
If the issue in your case is that client definitions are complex, with very intricate view definitions, then you may wish to investigate the 'template client' feature: set up a single master client with the view and options that you prefer, and then your other users can use 'client -t' to create workspace definitions that copy the view and options details from the template client.
It's possible to do this, but not advisable. Since Perforce keeps a server-side record of what files are synced to each client, you could run into a situation where:
User Fred syncs using the shared client and gets a fresh set of files.
Before any changes are committed, user Jim syncs using the shared client and gets nothing because the Perforce server thinks that the client already has an up to date set of files.
Jim could get around this using "p4 sync -f" which will force all the latest files to be synced to his workspace, but that's a kludge around the way Perforce is designed to be used.
Perforce clients are very lightweight in terms of the resources they take up on the server, so it's better not to have shared clients.
I tried to find a more complete explanation of why clients should not be shared in the online Perforce documentation, but it's not very helpful. The book "Practical Perforce" has the best overview I've seen if you happen to have a copy around.
Use a template workspace as Bryan mentioned, or consider using streams. In the streams framework you define the stream view (composition) once, and workspaces are generated automatically.
p4 sync -f is too slow. Because firstly it will delete all the files in your local and then reload the files from central depot! there is a tricky way to do. It is to create a havelist and do sync, when wanting do sync -f. details is 1,get the clientspec, 2, save it to local. 3, delete the client 4, create a same client using the saved clientspec. Therefore we save the time for delete local files.
I have a "Projects" folder which contains dozens of Visual Studio projects. I want to create a backup for them. First I thought I should copy them all to my SkyDrive or DropBox folders and let them be synced to the cloud whenever there is a change.
The other strategy would be using a source control but I don't want the backup to take place whenever a change is made and it should be optimized. By that I mean, only the changed files and only the changed parts should be uploaded to the server to save my bandwidth. I don't have a very good connection (512 Kbps).
Also my codes are very valuable for me so security is very important to me.
Is there a way to achieve the automatic backup to the cloud (ideally free) and take advantage of the source control options (such as revisions, etc.)?
I'm sure a lot of people have solutions for this and a lot of people have the same problem so please let the question be answered instead of just clicking "close"!
Use GitHub or BitBucket. You have all the benefits of version control and a cloud storage for your repositories.
You can commit changes as often as you like, and only need traffic when you push or pull changes to or from the server. The version control systems are smart enough to sent only the modified files.
You could even have a team working on a local network, without the need of a cloud solution and only push to the cloud server periodically just for backup. To do that, you can create a script that pulls from your local repository and pushes to the server. That script can be run in a scheduler.
Apart from the service used to backup your files, I think you should use version control anyway. As a programmer I don't think you can live without.
This might be of interest to you.
The idea is that you create just the Source Control repository in Dropbox, and check out an actual copy onto your machine.
You could then only commit (which would trigger the sync) the files you've modified, and that was also reserve all of your history for those projects.
I'm traveling all the time (every 2-3 months, I'm in a new city or country), with no real permanent address. I've managed to work out all the kinks over the last couple of years...except having a good backup/sync solution.
I have a macbook pro & a thinkpad w701 (which runs two different VMs). It's a pain in the ass because making changes on one machine (such as adding some new music or updating some presentations) requires me to keep track of what changed where. And then every couple of weeks, after syncing the three different images, I try to manually sync it out to a backup drive that I carry around.
It's pretty much the most annoying thing ever...especially when I sometimes make changes on the backup drive and I have to remember not to override them.
What I'd really like is something simple that has more of a version control like workflow:
I can push out changes to some
central server (like a commit.
Example: I add some changes to my
music directory and then I can just
commit those changes to backup)
Before the backup happens, I'd like to see a "diff": what files will be
overridden, which one's newer, etc
I can access my files off the server (if I'm making an audio mix and need
to pull out some songs, I'd like to get them from the server. All the
backups can't just be one big binary
compressed zip blob)
Dropbox comes pretty close but it lacks the "commit" & "diff" functionality. I thought about using Amazon AWS but that falls short because I can't see diffs and can't access my files directly off aws.
Any ideas? Or any other solutions? I guess what I'd really like is TimeMachine in the cloud or maybe even a NAS that's securely accessible through the internet
You might want to use rsync. It's a unix synchronization tool you can use it on windows and unix variants (including Mac OS X). It uses delta copying to minimize transfer and hardlinks to minimize backup size.
You can access all files in every backup as though they were normal files. Diffing can be done using traditional tools. It is all command-line based so if you don't want that you will need to find GUI tools, but I don't know which you could use.
You would need a server with a rsync deamon/service. I don't know if there are providers for it but you can set up your own VPS starting at a few dollars a month.
Have you looked at Amazon S3? S3 is data storage mechanism and there are bunch of tools to "sync" your local directory with S3. Some of the tools are:
http://www.vinodlive.com/2007/08/20/amazon-s3-storage-tools/
Out of these , S3Sync should do what you are looking for, I.e. submit only changed files and a mode that would tell you changes before submitting them.
For example, I have a website with various types of information. If that goes down I have a copy of the same website the users use on a local webserver, like Apache or IIS on the client. They use this local version until the Internet version returns. They can have no downtime, in other words.
The problem is that over time the Internet version will change while the client versions will remain the same unless I touch each client's machine to make the updates. I don't want to do that.
Is there a good way to keep my client up to date so that when I make a change on the server the client gets a copy so they can run it locally if needs be?
Thank you.
EDIT: do you think maybe using SVN and timely running of the update by the clients would work?
EDIT: they'll never ever submit anything. It's just so I don't have to update the client by hand, manually going to the machine. they're webpages that run in case the main server is down.
I will go for Git over SVN because of its distributed nature. Gives you multiple copies of code; use it along with this comment's solution:
Making git auto-commit
to autocommit.
Why not use something like HTTrack to make local copies of your actual internet site on each machine, rather then trying to do a separate deployment. That way you'll automatically stay in sync.
This has the advantage that if, at some point, part of your website is updated dynamically from a database, the user will still be able to have a static copy of the resulting site that is up-to-date.
There are tools like rsync which you can use periodically to sync the changes.