As far as I know, the generally accepted practice of adding third party code like d3 is to add it as a git submodule. This reduces the size of the main repo, but I would imagine having d3 (for example) code in the main repo would help debug the cases when d3 changes breaking some code that uses it.
Are there any reasons why I should not just check out the latest version, develop my code using it, and push it to my own repository?
I really like using git subtree for this purpose. It allows you to keep copies of the remote repository, but still maintains that repository's history, and push/pull back and forth at will.
the only reason is: you don't need it. just use some build tool that automatically manages your dependencies (like grunt). but if for any reason it's not an option for you than use the way that fits your needs. you can make a separate dir for 3rd party libraries and it will work. just make a way so any developer can easily find out which version is currently used (for example use version in file name)
I'm currently using Bitbucket for my Mercurial repositories and it's working great. I would however like to be able to organize my repositories in folders, as having them all in one long list is a bit disorganized for my liking.
To be clear I'd like to be able to access my repositories kind of like this:
hg clone https://username#bitbucket.org/username/foldername/reponame
While (AFAIK) it is currently only possible to use a single reponame, no foldername.
Is there any Mercurial hosting provider that does this, or is there some other method that might help me organize my stuff?
I'm aware of subrepos and I might look into that, but it seems like a hackish solution to my problem (also one of the clusters I am working on uses an ancient Mercurial version from way before subrepos were added). Another possibility would be to have multiple user accounts for Bitbucket, but again that doesn't really scale well (I don't want to wind up with 10 accounts).
You will have to use separate repositories.
Kiln has a nice interface that supports multiple repositories.
Organize Your Code
Start simply by just creating the repositories you need for your
code. Kiln introduces branch repositories, repository groups, and
projects to help keep things organized as you develop your own
workflow.
...
Repository Groups and Projects are there to help keep related code
grouped together. Whether your software project is large or small, it
can be really helpful to separate different parts of the code into
different repositories. What used to be accomplished with complicated
naming schemes is now accomplished with simple labels and
drag-and-drop organization.
Kiln (kilnhg.com) has a concept of projects and groups for organizing repositories along with several other really cool features.
It is a commercial product, however. (Your question didn't mention whether or not that was a problem for you.)
The only way you can obtain this using Bitbucket is to create a single repository named "foldername" and put the sub-repository inside this 'root repository'. This however is not the best practice according to the mercurial philosophy. Also, you will have a single bitbucket panel as per a single repository.
You can then use the mercurial feature Suprepositories to manage the whole collection:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/Subrepository
Read about the kind of layout you are looking for here:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/UnderstandingMercurial
(point 6, at the end of the page)
Of course you can setup your personal mercural server to do this, but is a little bit tricky and I discourage it. If you wanto to try, you can start from here:
http://ekkescorner.wordpress.com/blog-series/git-mercurial/step-by-step-install-mercurial-server-on-ubuntu/
I've recently taken on a project with no version control. I don't have any experience with version control myself. I feel it is the only way to go with this project (and probably any future projects now I think of it - I always trust myself too much..)
My question is - where do I begin with implementing version control on a project already in production? Bearing in mind I haven't used version control before so really it's two separate questions:
Starting out with version control
Implementing it on an already live
project
For background, the project is a php/mysql driven website using bits of javascript, I'm working on a (Windows) XAMPP server and I'm very keen to learn this new world of version control!
Congratulations, you are headed in the right direction!
You'll first need to choose a version control system. My current favorite is Git. Unfortunately, I don't think that Git is an easy introduction to version control. I have also used Subversion and Perforce.
Subversion (http://subversion.tigris.org/) works on many platforms, is used in a lot of projects, and has some nice GUI tools available (such as TortoiseSVN on Windows). Command-line tools are also available. It's also free. You can run it in "local filesystem" mode, meaning that you don't need to set up a separate server. It's come a long way from it's "better than CVS" roots.
Perforce (http://www.perforce.com/) is pretty nice. Its Windows implementation seems the best (last I checked, their cross-platform GUI was pretty lousy). You primarily use a GUI to interact with it, though again there are command-line tools. It's commercial software, but open source projects can get free licenses by contacting the company. The biggest drag is that you will need to set up a server. To get started, you could run the server on the same box that you develop on, but that's probably a bad idea in the long run. I found Perforce to be very good for 2-8 person teams; I don't know how well it would work with more.
The big advantage to Git (http://git-scm.com/) is that it requires virtually no set-up. Once installed, you can execute git init in any directory to create a new git repository. The revision history is kept inside the project's directory. You can start out with just local versioning, and you can scale up from there. If Git seems scary, you could also check out Mercurial (https://www.mercurial-scm.org/). I haven't used it, but I understand that it shares some of the same underlying principles as Git.
Avoid CVS. It's on its way out, and no new project should be using it unless they need to do so.
Adding source control to an existing project is easy. The hard part would be making sure that everybody is willing to use source control. If you're working alone, then it's just personal discipline. If you're part of a team, though, and some people have reservations, you will have problems. Try to get everybody on board, and be available to try to answer their questions. If people don't know how to use a tool, they simply won't use it.
Start here: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/
I've found SVN to be the easiest version control system to use, especially for beginners. It's pretty simple to start, the only real decision you have to make is where to host your stuff. There are a couple free svn servers available, but if you're really serious about your work you should host your own.
The first thing to do is to pick a version control paradigm (centralized versus distributed). To answer that, you'll need to take a look at your team and how you intend to handle check-in, check-out, merging, and branching. Once you pick a paradigm, you can choose a version control system. The mainstream systems are Subversion for centralized version control and Git and Mercurial for distributed version control.
If the project is live and working, then that should be your initial check-in to whatever version control you are using. You need a reliable baseline that you can revert to and have 0 work to deploy something that works. If your project is not functional...well, good luck. You might want to check in to start using version control and then decide how you want to proceed (either get the project to a stable and functioning state and then restart your repository or have your initial check-in be a broken system).
If the rest of the team doesn't see the benefit with version control, I would recommend installing your own system on your machine and, at the very least, use it for your own work.
Be prepared for some resistance from management and/or your co-workers. Management may not want to invest the resources for a repository machine -- these things need to be installed, maintained, backed-up, etc. Or they may object to you spending time on an "extra" like a RCS.
Your co-workers, especially if they're unfamiliar with any RCS, are likely to resist using it, or complain that it's too hard to use. There's a learning curve to any new tool, and source control systems are no exception. It's worth the time to learn, though.
My advice is to pick one -- any one that strikes your fancy -- and start using it. Don't worry about getting it 100% perfect the 1st time, it probably won't be any worse than what you have now, which is one misplaced keystroke away from oblivion.
Play with it. Check files out into a separate workspace and hack things up, knowing that it doesn't matter; you can always revert it. Learn how to use your new tool with some GUI frontends (I'm fond of 'svn diff --diff-cmd=kdiff3', myself). Get to the point where you know how to check in & out, tags things, branch, and merge. Then show your co-workers.
Personally, I'm fond of svn, but I didn't choose it; it chose me.
Step 1: Download Mercurial.
Step 2: In your favorite command line, go to the root of your source directory and type hg init.
Step 3: Do a make clean or equivalent (ie. all you want is source, no generated files).
Step 4: Type hg addremove.
Step 5: Type hg commit.
From this point on you can:
Examine the changes between your most recent commit and now: hg diff or hg status.
Make checkpoints in your code: hg commit.
Return to previous checkpoints: hg update -C -r 0
Congratulations, you are now using version control: It's really not that hard, and it's very, very useful (if for no other reason than you can look at the changes you've made to see if they make sense).
At some point you'll probably want to learn about branching (if only so that you have a backup copy of your repository on another machine) at which point you can turn to the documentation or the book.
I don't know if there is something similar for php etc, but an interesting resource here is "Brownfield Application Development in .NET". In many ways, this only uses .NET for the examples; most of the book is really about tackling policies exactly like you mention:
how to introduce source control
how to introduce unit testing
how to introduce continuous integration
etc
and all the concerns/consideration that go with them.
Partly relating to the code; but also relating to the "human" factor; colleagues, managers, etc. I highly recommend it; but you might decide the .NET background is inappropriate for you (it is a good fit for me ;-p).
You can look here: git-for-beginners-the-definitive-practical-guide
This one is a distributed version control system that currently has a good windows support with Git on Windows and a shell extension with TortoiseGit
An addition to other answers:
If the project you want to put under version control have had some releases, and if those versions are available for example as tarfiles (e.g. project-0.1.tar.gz, project-0.2.tar.gz, project-0.3.tar.gz, ...) you might want to consider importing those versions into your chosen version control system. Git for example has import-tars.perl and import-zips.py in contrib/fast-import/ directory, and writing support for other files in other programming languages for git fast-import should be easy.
Sidenote: my preferred version control system is Git.
See also: Good link or book for basics and theory of version control question.
I learned the concepts from the pragmatic series:
example for subversion, they also have books on GIT as well.
I only have experience with SourceSafe and SVN.
SourceSafe seems to have issues with corrupting it's own database, on a team of 5 we were repairing the db probably once a month. It's easy, but still something you shouldn't have to deal with. It's difficult to label code too and use that label for anything practical.
SVN is nice, it's simple to install on Linux or Windows. Most IDEs have a plugin for it, and if you're using Windows there is an Explorer extension (TortoiseSVN) that allows you to do all your operations right from Windows Explorer. There's a lot of SVN tools out there for every OS, it's very well supported. SVN also integrates with TRAC (a bug tracking system), and Bugzilla so you can tie your work tickets to code.
I will say that [HOW you use version control is probably just as, if not more important than which package you use][2]. Using it simply as a library is a very rudimentary application of it, but for a 1-2 man team making a website or an app where you won't be maintaining builds and versions, you'll be ok.
When it comes to version control, anything is better than nothing.
Wow, everyone is just boosting his favorite version control utility.
OK, to answer your question, how do you put a project under version control?
It's not that hard, once you pick a version control utility (be it, git, svn, hg, bzr .. whatever) there's usually a command or two to initialize a repository then add all the relevant files to it.
For instance, in git it might be something like:
$git init
$git add --all
$git commit -m"First commit"
Now, about choosing a version control utility, that's a tough question and highly depends on what you want. You might want to have a look at this question:
Popularity of Git/Mercurial/Bazaar vs. which to recommend
The only tools you should consider choosing among are:
git
svn (Subversion)
hg (Merculiar)
bzr (Bazaar)
mtn (Monotone)
Everything else is either old or commercial.
svn follows a server-client model; there's a central repository. If you're a one-man team then the only thing this means to you is that you have to setup a server and make sure it starts with the computer. Though I heard that you can do away with the server. A bit of googling turns up this guide for using svn without a server
All other tools follow a distributed model, again, if you're a one-man team, the only thing this means to you is that there's no server to setup.
The advantage of svn is that it's been there for a while and has many gui front-ends and better IDE integration.
I can't compare git to hg (merculiar) since I haven't used the latter, but git has a unique storage model compared to svn and hg.
bzr is said to be easier to use, but slower (it's written in python).
I'm personally satisfied with git, but you should do your own research; or maybe just choose one and stick with it. As far as I can tell, they're all mature and stable.
I have been using an open source Java project and had to make some custom changes for our site. I have downloaded the source code via Subversion, modified two files and built a custom JAR file. Now I need to store these custom changes into OUR Subversion source control system. What is the best way to do this?
Should I check the entire tagged version of the open source code into our system and then create a branch with our change in it? Or should I just check-in our custom files and rely on the open source tagged version to always be around? Or perhaps something else altogether?
Take a good look at Subversion vendor branches, which are meant for "maintain[ing] custom modifications to third-party data in your own version control system". This sounds like exactly what you want. You would create a vendor branch for the open source Java project in your main repo (from their last SVN revision before your modifications). Then, check in your modifications. In the future, you can merge in upstream changes.
The Subversion book is free and available online, with a section devoted to choosing a repository layout.
the Subversion community recommends
that you choose a repository location
for each project root—the “topmost”
directory that contains data related
to that project—and then create three
subdirectories beneath that root:
trunk, meaning the directory under
which the main project development
occurs; branches, which is a directory
in which to create various named
branches of the main development line;
and tags, which is a collection of
tree snapshots that are created, and
perhaps destroyed, but never changed.
I'm happy to elaborate if you are having trouble determining what exactly this means for your project.
First try to avoid this as long as you can, if it is possible try to get your changes into the open-source project (less work for your self in the future...)
But if that was not a option, I would follow Matthew Flaschen advice about vendor branches.
I once ran across a commercial tool for Windows that allowed you to "stash" code changes outside of source control but now I can't remember the name of it. It would copy the current version of a document to a backup location and undo your checkout in source control. You could then reintroduce your backed up changes later. I believe it worked with multiple source control systems. Does anyone know what program I'm trying to describe?
The purpose of my asking is twofold: The first is to find a good way to do this. The second is because I just can't remember what that darn program was and it's driving me crazy.
Git: http://git-scm.com/
You can use git stash to temporarily put away your current set of changes: http://git-scm.com/docs/git-stash . This stores your changes locally (without committing them), and lets you reintroduce them into your working copy later.
Git isn't commercial, but is quickly gaining many converts from tools like Subversion.
I think the product you're thinking of is "CodePickle" by SmartBear Software. However, it appears to be a discontinued product.
The term that seems to be used for the type of functionality you're looking for seems to be 'shelving'.
Microsoft's Team system has a 'shelve' feature.
Perforce has several unsupported scripts, including p4tar and p4 shelve
There are several 'shelving' tools for Subversion, but I don't know how robust they are.
I'm no git user myself, but several of my colleagues are, and they seem to like it precisely for this purpose. They use the various git wrappers to commit "real" changes to the SCM system used by their company, but keep private git repositories on their drives which they can keep their changes which they don't necessarily want to commit.
When they're ready to commit to the company's SCM server, then they just merge and commit upstream. Is that what you're looking to do?
Wouldn't it be a better idea to store your private changes in private branch, using e.g. svn switch to change to main branch whenever you need to?
Mercurial has the Shelve Extension which does what you want.
You can even select which changes from a single file that you want to shelve if you really want.
In Darcs, you either don't record the changes you want stashed (it asks you about including each change independently when you record a new patch), or put them in separate patches that you don't push upstream.
There's no need to fully synchronize your local private repos with public/upstream/other ones. You can just cherry pick the patches you want to push elsewhere. Selecting patches can also be done with patterns, so if you adopt a naming convention for your stashed patches you can push everything but them easily.
That way, your private changes are still in revision control, but they aren't shared until you want them to be.
I found an excellent article about obtaining similar functionality using Subversion branches:
Shelves-in-subversion
And then there's the old fallback... 'patch', or even the old "copy everything to another location, then revert".
Both of these are less convenient than using tools that are part of most VCS systems, though.