Related
I have come across sources that say that it is better to have separate branches for different features than implementing the feature in trunk.
A question that I have with this approach is, when merging a feature to trunk, we will be merging the whole thing at once. If we do this and annotate a file to see the reasons behind different lines of code, we would see a comment saying "merging xyz feature" which would not be very helpful.
Is there a way to overcome this issue?
If your problem is that when using SVN Blame (aka Annotate) it doesn't show you a list of all the commit comments for merged revisions?
If so, you need to add the -g flag to the command, or if using TortoiseSVN, check the 'Include Merge Info' checkbox.
There are sources that would say that, but there are also sources that say that the earth is flat.
Task branching in a distributed vcs is workable, though something of a solution in search of a problem in the vast majority of cases. In previous generations of systems, it will be pure pain for no gain. It won't do anything useful; and if (when) you get it wrong it will cause confusion and unnecessary rework.
In the worst case your task branches become stealth feature branches. And then you end up maintaining several times the volume of code you need to; every other team member has there own private slightly-different versions of common libraries representing work in progress. Meaning every merge breaks things, so merges happen less, so every branch diverges more.
That's the kind of thing you might have to do, the kind of costs you might have to bear, if you had multiple customers with incompatible needs, or tortuous legal restrictions. Except you are doing it to your own team, for no reason other than a vague feeling it's the right thing to do.
I just made the move to version control the other day, and after a bad experience with Subversion, I switched to Mercurial, and so far am happy with it.
Although I understand and appreciate the idea of version control, I don't really have any practical experience with it.
Right now, I am using it for a couple websites I am working on, and a couple questions have come to mind:
When/how often should I commit? After any major change, whether it works or not? When I'm done for the night? Only when it reaches it's next stable iteration? After any bugfixes?
Would I branch off when I wanted to, say, change the layout of a menu, then merge back in?
Should I branch? What is the difference (for just me, a lone developer) between branching, then merging back in, and cloning the repository and pulling it back in?
Any other advice for a version control newbie?
So far, everyone has given me good advice, but very team-oriented. I would like to clarify:
At the moment, I am just using VC on some websites I do on the side. Not quite full-out freelance work, but for the purposes of VC, I am the only one that really touches the website code.
Also, since I am using PHP on the sites, there is no compiling to be done.
Does this change your answers significantly?
Most of the questions you're asking about depends mostly on who you are working with. If you're a lone developer it shouldn't matter a lot, since you can do whatever you'd like. But if you're in a team where you have to share your code then you should discuss with your team members what the code of conduct should be since sharing changes between one another can become tricky at times.
The discussion regarding code of conduct doesn't need to be lengthy, it can be very brief; as long everyone is on the same page on how to use the repository that is shared between the programmers in the team. If you want to use the more advanced features in Mercurial, such as cherry picking or patch queues, then try using them so that it won't impact your team members in a negative way, such as rebasing on a public repository.
Remember version control has to be easy to use for everyone in the team, or else it won't be used.
When/how often should I commit? After any major change, whether it works or not? When I'm done for the night? Only when it reaches it's next stable iteration? After any bugfixes?
While working with a team there are several approaches, but the common rule is to commit early and often. The main reason on why you should commit often is to make merge conflicts easier to handle.
A merge conflict is simply put whenever merging a file that has been changed by at least two people doesn't work because they've been editing on the same lines. If you're holding on to a commit that involves a very large change with several lines of changes across several files, it will become very difficult to manage for the receiver to manage the conflicts that may occur. The merge conflict becomes even more difficult to handle if the said set of changes are held on for too long.
There are some exceptions to the rule of committing often and one is whenever you have a breaking change. although if you have the ability to commit locally (which you are doing in Mercurial and git inherently) you could commit breaking changes. As long as you fix whatever broke, you should push it upstream to the shared repository when you've fixed your own breaking change.
Would I branch off when I wanted to, say, change the layout of a menu, then merge back in?
Should I branch?
There are many branching strategies to choose from (there is the Streamed Lines paper from 1998 that has an exhaustive pattern list of branching strategies) and when you're making them for yourself it should be open game for yourself. However when working in teams, you'd better discuss openly with the team if you need to branch or not. Whenever you have the urge to branch though you should ask yourself the following questions:
Will my future changes be breaking the work of others?
Will my team have a direct negative impact from the changes I'll be doing until I'm done?
Is my code throwaway code?
If the answer is yes in any of the questions above you should probably branch publically, or keep it for yourself (since you can do that in Mercurial in several ways). You should first discuss with your team on how to execute the whole endavour to see if there is any other way of doing it and if you're going to merge your changes back in, sometimes there are factors at play where there is no need to branch (this is mostly related to how modular the code is).
When you decide to branch be prepared to handle a merge conflict. It is sane to assume the one who created the branch and made the commits to be able to merge it back into the "main branch". At these times it would be great if everyone in the team made relevant commit comments.
As a side note: You do write good commit comments, right? RIGHT!? A good commit comment usually tells why that particular change was made or what feature the committer was working on instead of a nondescript "I made a commit" kind of comment. This makes it easier for the one who is handling the big merge conflict to figure out what line changes can be overwritten and which ones to keep while going through the revision history.
Compile times, or build times rather, sometimes play into the branch discussion you may have. If your project has a slow build time then it might be a good idea to use a staging strategy in your branches. This strategy takes into account that all developers should integrate to a "main line" and changes that are approved are elevated (or "promoted") to the next stage, such as testing or release lines. It is classically illustrated with tag names for open source software like this:
main -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-> ...
\ \ \
test o-----------o--------------o---------> ...
1.0 RC1 \ 1.0 RC2 2.0 RC1
release o----------------------> ...
1.0
The point with this is that testers can work without being interrupted by the programmers and that there is a known baseline for those who are in release management. In distributed version control, the different lines could be cloned repositories and it may look a bit different since repositories share the versioning graph. The principle however is the same.
Regarding web development, there are virtually no build times. But branching in stages (or by tagging your release revisions) it becomes easier to roll-back if you want to check a difficult-to-track-down bug.
However, a whole other thing comes into play and that is the time it takes to deploy the site. Version control tools in my experience are really bad at asset management. Handling art assets that are in total up to several GB usually is a huge pain in the butt to handle in Subversion (more so in Mercurial). Assets may require you to handle them in another way that is less time consuming, such as putting them in a shared space that are synched and backed up in a traditional manner (art assets are usually not worked on concurrently as with source code files).
What is the difference (for just me, a lone developer) between branching, then merging back in, and cloning the repository and pulling it back in?
The concepts of branching and keeping remote repositories are closer now than with centralized version control tools. You could almost consider them being the same thing. In Mercurial (and in git) you can "branch" either by:
Cloning a repository
Creating a named branch
Creating a named branch means that you're making a new path in the versioning graph for the repository you're creating it on. Creating a cloned repository means you're copying the source repository into a new location, and making a new path in the cloned repository's versioning graph. They are both two different implementations of branching as a general concept in version control.
In practice, the only difference between both methods that you should care about is in usage. You clone a repository to have a copy of the source code and have a place to store your own changes in and you create named branches whenever you want to do small experiments for yourself.
Since browsing through branches is a bit quirky for those who accustomed to a straight line of commits, advanced users know how to manipulate their versions so the version history is "clean" with e.g. cherry picking or rebase. At the moment git docs actually explain rebase rather well.
These are the practices that I follow
Each commit should make sense: one bug fix (or a set of bugs related to each other), one (small) new feature, etc. The idea is that if you need to rollback, your rollbacks fall on well defined "boundaries"
Every commit should have a good message explaining what you are committing. Really get into this habit, you will thank yourself later. Doesn't have to be verbose, a few sentences can do. If you are using a bug tracking system, associating a bug number with your commit is also extremely helpful
Now that I use git and branching is so incredibly fast and cheap, I tend to make a new branch for each new feature I'm about to implement. I'd never even consider doing this for many other VCSes. So branching depends on the system you are using, your codebase, your team, etc, there are no hard rules there.
I prefer to always use the command line and get to know my VCS's commands directly. The disconnect that a GUI based frontend can cause can be a pain, and even damaging. Controlling your source code is very important, it's worth getting in there and doing it directly. But that's just my preference.
Back up your VCS. I back up my local repository with Time Machine, and then I push out to a remote repository on my server, and that server is backed up as well. VCS alone is not really a "backup", it can go down too just like anything else.
When/how often should I commit?
You'll probably get lots of contradictory answers on this one. My view is that you should commit changes when they are working, and each commit (or checkin) should contain exactly one "edit". An "edit" is an atomic set of changes that go together to fix a bug or implement a new feature.
There is a theory that you should check in code every few hours even if it's not working, but in that case you will need to be working on your own branch - you don't want to be checking in broken code to your main line, or onto a shared branch.
The advantage of checking in every night is that you have backups (assuming that your repository is on a different machine).
As for branching:
you should have main line that contains always working code.
you should have a current development branch that contains the latest code. When you are happy with this (and it's passed all it's tests) you should merge it back into the main line.
you might want a branch that contains the last released version. This can be used for testing/debugging bugs and releasing patches (in extremis).
update before each commit
provide commit comments
commit as soon as you have something finished
don't commit anything that makes the code in the repository not compiling or buggy
update every morning
sometimes verbally communicate with colleages if there is something important to update
commit code relevant to exactly one thing (i.e. fixing a bug, implementing a feature)
don't worry to make very small commits, as long as they conform to the previous rule
Btw, what's the bad experience with Subversion?
I commit when I am finished a piece of work and only if it is working. It's bad practise to commit to somewhere where other people use the code.
Branching is something that people will argue about. Some people say never branch and just have switches to get something working or not. Do what you feel more comfortable but don't branch just because you can. I use branching and Branch when i am working on a major bit of work where if I commit broken code by accident its not going to affect everyone else.
Q: When/how often should I commit? After any major change, whether it works or not? When I'm done for the night? Only when it reaches it's next stable iteration? After any bugfixes?
A: Whenever you are feeling comfortable, I am commiting as soon as a unit of work is finished and working (which does not mean that the complete task has to be finished). But you should not commit something that does not compile (might inhibit other people in the team,if any). Also, you should not commit incomplete stuff to the trunk if there is any possibility that you have to implement a quick fix or small change before completing it.
Q: Would I branch off when I wanted to, say, change the layout of a menu, then merge back in?
A: Only if there is a possibility that you have to implement a quick fix or small change before completing your task.
The nice thing about branching is that all commits you are doing in the branch will still be available for future reference (if necessary). Also it is much simpler and faster than cloning the repo, I think ;-)
I agree with others on commit times.
Regarding branching, I generally branch only when working on something that breaks what others are doing or when a patch needs to be rolled to production in a file that already has changes that should not go to production. If you're only one developer, then the first scenario doesn't really apply.
I use tags to manage releases - the "production" tag is always associated with the current prod code, and each release is tagged with "release-YYYYMMDD". This allows you to roll back if necessary.
This morning, I read two opinions on refactoring.
Opinion 1 (Page not present)
Opinion 2 (Page not present)
They recommend branching (and subsequently merging) code to:
Keep the trunk clean.
Allow a developer to walk away from risky changes.
In my experience (particularly with Borland's StarTeam), merging is a non-trival operation. And for that reason, I branch only when I must (i.e. when I want to freeze a release candidate).
In theory, branching makes sense, but the mechanics of merging make it a very risky operation.
My questions:
Do you feel comfortable merging code?
Do you branch code for reasons other than freezing a release
candidate?
Branching might be painful but it shouldn't be.
That's what git-like projects (mercurial, bazar) tells us about CVS and SVN. On git and mercurial, branching is easy. On SVN it's easy but with big projects it can be a bit hardcore to manage (because of time spent on the branching/merging process that can be very long -- compared to some others like git and mercurial -- and difficult if there are non-obvious conflicts). That don't help users that are not used to branch often to have confidence in branching. Lot of users unaware of the powerful uses of branching just keep it away to not add new problems to their projects, letting the fear of the unknown make them far from efficiency.
Branching should be an easy and powerful tool we'd have to use for any reason good enough to branch.
Some good reasons to branchs:
working on a specific feature in parallel with other people (or while working on other features alternatively if you're alone on the project);
having several brand versions of the application;
having parallel versions of the same application -- like concurrent techniques developped in the same time by to part of the team to see what works the better;
having resources of the application being changed on a artist/designers (for example in games) specific branch where the application is "stable" while other branches and trunk are used for features addition and debugging;
[add here useful usages]
Some loose guiding principles:
Branch late and only when you need to
Merge early and often
Get the right person to do the merge, either the person who made the changes or the person who wrote the original version are best
Branching is just another tool, you need to learn how to use it effectively if you want the maximum benefit.
Your attitude to branching should probably differ between distributed open source projects (such as those on Git) and your company's development projects (possibly running on SVN). For distributed projects you'll want to encourage branching to maximize innovation and experimentation, for the latter variety you'll want tighter control and to dictate checkin policies for each code line that dictate when branching should / should not occur, mostly to "protect" the code.
Here is a guide to branching:
http://www.vance.com/steve/perforce/Branching_Strategies.html
Here is a shorter guide with some high level best practices:
https://www.perforce.com/pdf/scm-best-practices.pdf
Branching is trivial. Merging is not. For that reason, we rarely branch anything.
Using SVN, I've found branching to be relatively painless. Especially if you periodically merge the trunk into your branch to keep it from getting too far out of sync.
We use svn. It only takes us about 5 minutes to branch code. It's trivial compared to the amount of pain it saves us from messing up trunk.
Working in a code base of millions of lines of code with hundreds of developers branching is an everyday occurrence. The life of the branch varies depending on the amount of work being done.
For a small fix:
designer makes a sidebranch off the main stream
makes changes
tests
reviews
merges accumulated changes from main stream to sidebranch
iterates through one or more of the previous steps
merges back to main stream
For a multi-person team feature:
team makes a feature sidebranch off the main stream
individual team member operates on feature sidebranch as in "small fix" approach and merges to feature sidebranch.
sidebranch prime periodically merges accumulated changes from main stream to feature sidebranch. Small incremental merges from the mainstream to feature sidebranch are much easier to deal with.
when feature works, do final merge from main stream to feature sidebranch
merge feature sidebranch to main stream
For a customer software release:
make a release branch
deliver fixes as needed to release branch
fixes are propogated to/from the main stream as needed
Customer release streams can be very expensive to support. Requires testing resources - people and equipment. After a year or two, developer knowledge on specific streams starts to get stale as the main stream moves forward.
Can you imagine how much it must cost for Microsoft to support XP, Vista and Windows 7 concurrently? Think about the test beds, the administration, documentation, customer service, and finally the developer teams.
Golden rule: Never break the main stream since you can stall a large number of developers. $$$
The branching problem is why I use a Distributed Version Control system (Git in my case, but there are also Mercurial and Bazaar) where creating a branch is trivial.
I use short lived branches all the time for development. This lets me mess around in my own repository, make mistakes and bad choices, and then rebase the changes to the main branch so only clean changes are kept in history.
I use tags to mark frozen code, and it is easy in these systems to go back and branch off these for bug fixes without having a load of long lived branches in the code base.
I use Subversion and consider branching very simple and easy. So to answer question 1.. Yes.
The reason for branching can vary massively. I branch if I feel I should. Quite hard to put rules and reasons down for all possibilities.
However, as far as the "Allow a developer to walk away from risky changes." comment. I totaly agree with that one. I create a branch whenever I want to really play around with the code and wish I was the only developer working on it.. When you branch, you can do that...
I've been on a project using svn and TFS and branching by itself is a really simple thing.
We used branching for release candidate as well as for long lasting or experimental features and for isolating from other team's interference.
The only painful moment in branching is merging, because an old or intensely developed branch may differ a lot from trunk and might require significant effort to merge back.
Having said the above, I would say that branching is a powerful and useful practice which should be taken into account while developing.
If merging is too much of a pain, consider migrating to a better VCS. That will be a bigger pain, but only once.
We use svn and have adopted a rule to branch breaking changes. Minor changes are done right in the trunk.
We also branch releases.
Branching and merging have worked well for us. Granted there are times we have to sit and think about how things fit together, but typically svn does a great job of merging everything.
I use svn, it takes less than a minute to branch code. I used to use Clearcase, it took less than a minute to branch code. I've also used other, lesser, SCMs and they either didn't support branches or were too painful to use. Starteam sounds like the latter.
So, if you cannot migrate to a more useful one (actually, I've only heard bad things about Starteam) then you might have to try a different approach: manual branching. This involves checking out your code, copying it to a different directory and then adding it as a new directory. When you need to merge, you'd check out both directories and use WinMerge to perform the merge, checking in the results to the original directory. Awkward and potentially difficult if you continue to use the branch, but it works.
the trick with Branching is not to treat it as a completely new product. It is a branch - a relatively short-lived device used to make changes separately and safely to a main product trunk. Anyone who thinks merging is difficult is either refactoring the code files so much (ie they are renaming, copying, creating new, deleting old) that the branch becomes a completely different thing, or they are keeping the branch so long that the accumulated changes bear little resemblance to the original.
You can keep a branch for a long time, you just have to merge your changes back regularly. Do this and branching/merging becomes very easy.
I've only done it a couple times, so I'm not exactly comfortable with it.
I've done it to conduct design experiments that would span over some checkins, so branching is an easy way to wall off yourself a garden to play in. Also, it allowed me to tinker while other people worked on the main branch, so we didn't lose much time.
I've also done it when making wide ranging changes that would render the trunk uncompilable. It became clear in my project that I'd have to remove compile-time type safety for a large portion of the codebase (go from generics to system.object). I knew this would take a while and would require changes all over the codebase which would interfere with other people's work. It would also break the build until I was complete. So I branched and stripped out the generics, working until that branch compiled. I then merged it back into the trunk.
This turned out pretty well. Prevented a lot of toe-stepping, which was great. Hopefully nothing like this will ever come up again. Its kind of a rare thing that a design will change requiring this kind of wide ranging edits that don't result in a lot of code being thrown out...
Branched have to be managed correctly to make merging painless. In my experience (with Perforce) regular integration to the branch from the main line meant that the integration back into the main line went very smoothly.
There were only rare occasions when the merging failed. The constant integration from the main line to the branch may well have involved merges, but they were only of small edits that the automatic tools could handle without human intervention. This meant that the user didn't "see" these happening.
Thus any merges required in the final integration could often be handled automatically too.
Perforces 3-way merge tools were a great help when they were actually needed.
Do you feel comfortable branching code?
It really depends of the tool I'm using. With Starteam, branching is indeed non trivial (TBH, Starteam sucks at branching). With Git, branching is a regular activity and is very easy.
Do you branch code for reasons other than freezing a release candidate?
Well, this really depends of your version control pattern but the short answer is yes. Actually, I suggest to read the following articles:
Version Control for Multiple Agile Teams by Henrik Kniberg
FeatureBranch by Martin Fowler
I really like the pattern described in the first article and it can be applied with any (non Distributed) Version Control System, including Starteam.
I might consider the second approach (actually, a mix of the both strategies) with (and only with) a Distributed Version Control Systems (DVCS) like Git, Mercurial...
We use StarTeam and we only branch when we have a situation that requires it (i.e. hotfix to production during release cycle or some long reaching project that spans multiple release windows). We use View Labels to identify releases and that makes it a simple matter to create branches later as needed. All builds are based on these view labels and we don't build non-labeled code.
Developers should be following a "code - test - commit" model and if they need a view for some testing purpose or "risky" development they create it and manage it. I manage the repository and create branches only when we need them. Those times are (but not limited to):
Production hotfix
Projects with long or overlapping development cycles
Extensive rewriting or experimental development
The merge tool in StarTeam is not the greatest, but I have yet to run into an issue caused by it. Whoever is doing the merge just needs to be VERY certain they know what they're doing.
Creating a "Read Only Reference" view in Star Team and setting it to a floating configuration will allow changes in the trunk to automatically show in the branch. Set items to branch on change. This is good for concurrent development efforts.
Creating a "Read Only Reference" view with a labeled configuration is what you'd use for hot fixes to existing production releases (assuming you've labeled them).
Branching is trivial, as most have answered, but merging, as you say, is not.
The real keys are decoupling and unit tests. Try to decouple before you branch, and keep an eye on the main to be sure that the decoupling and interface are maintained. That way when it comes time to merge, it's like replacing a lego piece: remove the old piece, and the new piece fits perfectly in its place. The unit tests are there to ensure that nothing got broken.
Branching and merging should be fairly straightforward.
I feel very comfortable branching/merging.
Branching is done for different reasons, depending on your development process model/
There's a few different branch models:
Here's a one
Trunk
.
.
.
..
. ....
. ...
. ..Release1
.
.
...
. ....
. ...Release2
.
.
..
. ...
. ..
. ...Release3
.
.
Now here's a curious thing. Suppose Release1 needed some bugfixing. Now you need to branch Release1 to develop 1.1. That is OK, because now you can branch R1, do your work, and then merge back to R1 to form R1.1. Notice how this keeps the diffs clear between releases?
Another branching model is to have all development done on the Trunk, and each release gets tagged, but no further development gets done on that particular release. Branches happen for development.
Trunk
.
.
.
.Release1
.
.
.
.
.Release2
.
.......
. ......
. ...DevVer1
. .
. .
. ...DevVer2
. ....
. ....
...
.Release3
.
There may be one or two other major branch models, I can't recall them off the top of my head.
The bottom line is, your VCS needs to support flexible branching and merging.
Per-file VCS systems present a major pain IMO(RCS, Clearcase, CVS).
SVN is said to be a hassle here as well, not sure why.
Mercurial does a great job here, as does(I think)git.
I am a novice in the world of source/version control and I have been doing as much reading as physically possible to get my head around the different techniques that people use for their own source/version control.
One thing that I have noticed is a pretty distinct break in the methods of developers into two (possibly more?) groups: one group prefers to keep their trunk in an always-stable state and performs all maintenance and future development in the branches, while others prefer to do all of their development in the trunk and keep it in a not-so-stable state.
I am curious as to what the community here at StackOverflow prefers or if you have your own methods.
Note: If it would help tailor the answers, I should note that I am a single developer (at most there would be two or three others in the same project) who works primarily in ASP.NET and SQL Server 2005
As I'm sure you've noticed from searching the web for answers on this topic, this is one of those things where the best answer is "It depends.", and as most of the responses have indicated, it's a trade-off between how easy do you want to be able to commit/merge new code vs. managing an extensive version history that you can easily roll back for support or debugging purposes.
I work for a small company, which means that at any given time, we could have 3 or 4 different versions of code on developer machines that have not yet been committed to the repository. We use TortoiseSVN for our version control system, which gives us the ability to branch/merge without too much difficulty, as well as being able to view the update log or revert our local copies to an earlier revision pretty easily.
Based on your question, I suppose we would fall under the group of developers who attempts to keep, at all times, a stable Trunk, and we branch new code and test it before merging it back into the Trunk. We also make an effort to keep "snapshots" of each version release so that, if necessary, we can easily check out an earlier version and re-build it, without incorporating any new features intended for a future release (This is also a great mechanism for tracking down bugs, as you can use earlier versions of code to help determine when a particular bug was first introduced into your code. However, one thing to be careful of is if your application references common code that is maintained separately from your version-ed code, you will need to keep track of that too!).
On the repository, it ends up looking something like this:
Trunk
v1.0.1.x Release
v1.0.2.x Release
v1.0.2.x Bug-Fix A <-- (These get merged back into Trunk, but remain on the repo)
v1.0.2.x Bug-Fix B
v1.1.1.x Release
v1.2.1.x Development <-- (This will get merged back to Trunk, and replaced by a Release folder)
v1.2.1.x New Feature A <-- (These get merged back into the Development branch)
v1.2.1.x New Feature B
When I first started at the company, our version structure was not quite as sophisticated, and in my experience, I would say that if you have any need whatsoever to keep track of earlier versions, it is will worth the effort to put something like this together (like I said earlier, it doesn't have to look exactly like this, so long as it fits your individual needs), keep it well documented so that all contributors can maintain it (the alternative is that the creator ends up "babysitting" the repo, which quickly becomes an incredible waste of time), and encourage all your developers to follow it. It may feel like a lot of effort in the beginning, but you'll appreciate it the first time you need to take advantage of it.
Good luck!
I do all my development in the trunk. I'm a single developer and don't want to deal with the hassle of branching. When my code is stable I just tag that current version. For example I'd tag version 1.0, 2.0 beta, 2.0 release candidate 1, version 2.0, etc. Branching would probably a better alternative if you’re maintaining old versions for bug fixes and support but since I don't do this I don't worry about it.
The differences may have to do with how painful merging is or isn't in a given version control system.
With git, branching and merging is practically effortless, so it's a common workflow for me to keep my master clean and do all my work in branches. Branching and merging in svn, particularly in previous versions, isn't quite so cheap and easy, so when I was using svn I tended to work directly on the trunk.
Always stable. Even if I'm a single developer -- almost especially if I'm a lone developer.
Having a broken tree to me means one less way to know what I should be doing.
Big changes go in branches, as well as stable releases, and do the smallest unit of changes possible at any given point so as to keep moving forward at a good pace.
This is the methodology which we follow:
Any stable release should be taken from the trunk. Any further work or modifications should go inside the working branch and should be merged with trunk when ready to release.
If have multiple independent developments, each group should have there on branch which they should sync with trunc periodically and merge it back to trunk when ready.
I've always used the main trunk as head of code. Generally new development code goes in there.
We branch for releases and we may branch for a "big" destabilizing experiment.
When we make bug fixes they go into in main first and then they get merged (back-ported) into the appropriate version branch if required.
If the big experiment works out it get's merged back into main.
We use tags for build numbers in the version branches and the main. That way we can get back to a specific version and build if we have to.
I'm in for the always-stable trunk. You need to be able to rebuild the latest stable version at any time...
In your case, I'd strongly recommend avoiding a lot of branching. It's really a fairly advanced process and not necessary for small projects and small teams.
Try and keep it simple to start with, I always try to have a known working build that can reproduced for testing and deployments etc. Depending on your repository you could use revision number (SVN), or just label the known working versions as they are required.
If you find you have multiple people touching the same files then you will need to consider a branching strategy, other than that for such a small dev team it will just be un-necessary overhead...(IMO)
One aspect is how long will the changes be in an unstable state.
When a change I make might affect other people, or the nightly build, then I do my work on a branch, and merge when stable.
When the changes I make won't affect other people (because it is my private code at home, rather than code at work), then I'm OK with checking in non-working intermediate states if that's what I want. Sometimes, I'll make a few checkins in a row which are not stable; that's OK for me when it is just me who is affected and the workflow will be continuous. It's if I come back in a few years time (as opposed to just a few days) and things aren't working that it gets problematic (one disadvantage of having been around as long as I have - I do have some projects that are still in development and maintenance that are old enough to vote).
I use a variant of tagging to achieve repeatable builds - so if I need to go back to a stable version for a bug-fix, I can use the tag information to do that. It is crucial to be able to get a stable version on demand.
One key distinction is how big files tend to be on average. Big files (1000 lines +) tend to have many independent changes that are trivially automatically mergeable. So the fact that someone else is actively changing a file you are about to start work on is probably uninteresting, so it is ok if the system makes that hard to discover.
So you tend to end up a VC strategy that has a lot of branches, and easy merges. New functionality is written in new branches.
If you are working with the smaller, highly-cohesive files typical of an OO design, in a language like Java, such accidental conflicts are a lot rarer. Even as an artificial example, it is pretty hard to come up with two sets of changes that can be made to a class (and corresponding JUnit test cases) that can sensibly be made in isolation and then automatically weaved back together by a text merge tool.
If you do a lot of refactoring (renaming and splitting files) then that stresses out the merge tool even more.
So you tend to be best off with a VC strategy that has an identifiable and usable stable trunk and minimal branches.
In the first approach, new functionality is written in new branches, and merged when complete. In the second, it is written in new files, and enabled when complete.
Of course, if you do the second, you definitely need strong protection from the baseline becoming unusable for any length of time (i.e. continuous integration and a strong automatically-run test suite).
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
How often should I commit changes to source control ? After every small feature, or only for large features ?
I'm working on a project and have a long-term feature to implement. Currently, I'm committing after every chunk of work, i.e. every sub-feature implemented and bug fixed. I even commit after I've added a new chunk of tests for some feature after discovering a bug.
However, I'm concerned about this pattern. In a productive day of work I might make 10 commits. Given that I'm using Subversion, these commits affect the whole repository, so I wonder if it indeed is a good practice to make so many ?
Anytime I complete a "full thought" of code that compiles and runs I check-in. This usually ends up being anywhere between 15-60 minutes. Sometimes it could be longer, but I always try to checkin if I have a lot of code changes that I wouldn't want to rewrite in case of failure. I also usually make sure my code compiles and I check-in at the end of the work day before I go home.
I wouldn't worry about making "too many" commits/check-ins. It really sucks when you have to rewrite something, and it's nice to be able to rollback in small increments just in case.
When you say you are concerned that your "commits affect the whole repository" --- are you referring to the fact that the whole repository's revision number increases? I don't know how many bits Subversion uses to store it, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to run out of revision numbers! Many commits are not a problem. You can commit ten times as often as the guy next door and you won't increase your carbon footprint at all.
A single function or method should be named for what it does, and if the name is too long, it is doing too much. I try to apply the same rule to check-ins: the check-in comment should describe exactly what the change accomplishes, and if the comment is too long, I'm probably changing too much at once.
I like this small article from Jeff Atwood: Check In Early, Check In Often
I personally commit every logical group of code that is finished/stable/compiles and try not to leave the day without committing what I did that day.
If you are making major changes and are concerned about affecting others working on the code, you can create a new branch, and then merge back into the trunk after your changes are complete.
If your version control comment is longer than one or two sentences, you probably aren't committing often enough.
I follow the open-source mantra (paraphrased) - commit early, commit often.
Basically whenever I think I've added useful functionality (however small) without introducing problems for other team members.
This commit-often strategy is particularly useful in continuous integration environments as it allows integration testing against other development efforts, giving early detection of problems.
I commit everytime I'm done with a task. That usually takes 30 mins to 1 hr.
Don't commit code that doesn't actually work. Don't use your repository as a backup solution.
Instead, back up your incomplete code locally in an automated way. Time Machine takes care of me, and there are plenty of free programs for other platforms.
The rule of thumb, that I use, is check-in when the group of files being checked-in can be covered by a single check-in comment.
This is generally to ensure that check-ins are atomic and that the comments can be easily digested by other developers.
It is especially true when your changes affect a configuration file (such as a spring context file or a struts config file) that has application wide scope. If you make several 'groups' of changes before checking in, their impact overlaps in the configuration file, causing the 2 groups to become merged with each other.
I don't think you should worry so much about how often. The important thing here is what, when and why. Saying that you have to commit every 3 hours or every 24 hours really makes no sense. Commit when you have something to commit, don't if you don't.
Here's an extract from my recommended best practices for version control:
[...] If you are doing many changes to a project at the same time, split them up into logical parts and commit them in multiple sessions. This makes it much easier to track the history of individual changes, which will save you a lot of time when trying to find and fix bugs later on. For example, if you are implementing feature A, B and C and fixing bug 1, 2 and 3, that should result in a total of at least six commits, one for each feature and one for each bug. If you are working on a big feature or doing extensive refactoring, consider splitting your work up into even smaller parts, and make a commit after each part is completed. Also, when implementing independent changes to multiple logical modules, commit changes to each module separately, even if they are part of a bigger change.
Ideally, you should never leave your office with uncommitted changes on your hard drive. If you are working on projects where changes will affect other people, consider using a branch to implement your changes and merge them back into the trunk when you are done. When committing changes to libraries or projects that other projects—and thus, other people—depend on, make sure you don’t break their builds by committing code that won’t compile. However, having code that doesn’t compile is not an excuse to avoid committing. Use branches instead. [...]
Your current pattern makes sense. Keep in mind how you use this source control: what if you have to rollback, or if you want to do a diff? The chunks you describe seem like exactly the right differential in those cases: the diff will show you exactly what changed in implementing bug #(specified in checkin log), or exactly what the new code was for implementing a feature. The rollback, similarly, will only touch one thing at a time.
I also like to commit after I finish a chunk of work, which is often several times a day. I think it's easier to see what's happening in small commits than big ones. If you're worried about too many commits, you may consider creating a branch and merging it back to the trunk when the whole feature is finished.
Here's a related blog post: Coding Horror: Check In Early, Check In Often
As others have stated, try to commit one logical chunk that is "complete" enough that it does not get in other devs' way (e.g., it builds and passes automated tests).
Each dev team / company must define what is "complete enough" for each branch. For example, you may have feature branches that require the code only to build, a Trunk that also requires code to pass automated tests, and labels indicating something has passed QA testing... or something like that.
I'm not saying that this is a good pattern to follow; I'm only pointing out that how done is "done" depends on your team's / company's policies.
I also like to check in regularly. That is every time I have a completed a step towards my goal.
This is typically every couple of hours.
My difficulty is finding someone willing and able to perform so many code reviews.
Our company policy is that we need to have a code review before we can check anything in, which makes sense, but there is not always someone in the department who has time to immediately perform a code review. Possible Solutions:
More work per check in; less checkins == less reviews.
Change the company checkin policy. If I have just done some refactoring and the unit tests all run green, maybe I can relax the rule?
Shelve the change until someone can perform the review and continue working. This can be problematic if the reviewer does not like you code and you have to redesign. Juggling different stages of a task by 'shelving' changes can become messy.
The moment you think about it.
(as long as what you check in is safe)
Depends on your source code system and what else you have in place. If you're using Git, then commit whenever you finish a step. I use SVN and I like to commit when I finish a whole feature, so, every one to five hours. If I were using CVS I'd do the same.
I agree with several of the responses: do not check in code that will not compile; use a personal branch or repository if your concern is having a "backup" of the code or its changes; check in when logical units are complete.
One other thing that I would add is that depending on your environment, the check-in rate may vary with time. For example, early in a project checking in after each functional piece of a component is complete makes sense for both safety and having a revision history (I am thinking of cases where earlier bits get refactored as later ones are being developed). Later in the project, on the other hand, entirely complete functionality becomes more important, especially during integration development/testing. A half-integration or half-fix does not help anyone.
As for checking in after each bug fix: unless the fix is trivial, absolutely! Nothing is more of a pain than finding that one check in contained three fixes and one of them needs to be rolled back. More often than not it seems that in that situation the developer fixed three bugs in one area and unwinding which change goes to which bug fix is a nightmare.
I like to commit changes every 30-60 minutes, as long as it compiles cleanly and there are no regressions in unit tests.
Well, you could have your own branch to which you can commit as often as you like, and when you are done with your feature, you could merge it to the main trunk.
On the frequency of Commits, I think of it this way, how much pain would it be to me if my hard disk crashed and I hadn't committed something - the quantum of this something for me is about 2 hours of work.
Of course, I never commit something that doesn't compile.
At least once a day.
I don't have a specific time limit per commit, I tend to commit once a test has passed and I'm happy with the code. I wouldn;t commit code that does not compile or is otherwise in a state that I would not feel good about reverting to in case of failure
You have to balance the compromise between safety and recoverability on the one hand and ease of change management for the entire project on the other.
The best scheme that I've used has had two answers to that question.
We used 2 completely separate repositories : one was the project wide repository and the other was our own personal repository (we were using rcs at the time).
We would check into our personal repository very regularly, pretty much each time you saved your open files. As such the personal repository was basically a big, long ranging, undo buffer.
Once we had a chunk of code that would compile, tested ok and was accepted as being ready for general use it was checked into the project repository.
Unfortunately this system relied on the use of different VCS technologies to be workable. I've not found any satisfactory method of achieving the same results while using two of VCS of the same type (eg. two subversion repositories)
However, I have had acceptable results by creating "personal" development branches in a subversion repository - checking into the branch regularly and then merging into the trunk upon completion.
If you're working on a branch which won't be released, a commit is always safe.
However, if you are sharing it with other developers, committing non-working code is likely to be a bit annoying (particularly if it's in an important place). Normally I only commit code which is effectively "working" - not that it's been fully tested, but that I've ascertained that it does actually compile and not fail immediately.
If you're using an integrated bug tracker, it may be helpful to do separate commits if you've fixed two bugs, so that the commit log can go against the right bugs. But then again, sometimes one code change fixes two bugs, so then you just have to choose which one to put it against (unless your system allows one commit to be associated with multiple bugs)
I still believe in the phrase 'commit often, commit early'. I prefer decentralized VCS like Mercurial and there's no problem to commit several things and push it upstream later.
This is really a common question, but the real question is: Can you commit unfinished code?
Whenever you finish some code that works and won't screw anyone else up if they get it in an update.
And please make sure you comment properly.