This might be a basic github question, but I'm having trouble finding the right keywords to google because I don't know the terminology. Apologies and thanks in advance.
I've noticed with library dependencies in library.json, under "dependencies", there is often a github remote repo link with a version number after the #
For example
https://github.com/codewitch-honey-crisis/htcw_ili9341.git#1.0.0"
What is that exactly after the #? A branch? A release?
More importantly, how do I make my github repo expose these. Like, I want to make a 1.0.0 one now for htcw_ili9341.git but later I may want to make 1.0.1
Using the github website, and/or the command line, how do I go about this?
It would be really helpful if you explained as you went as well.
So you know where I'm coming from with this, I've been using github for awhile but only for the most basic things, and driving it all through VS Code for the most part, sometimes resorting to the web interface and only occasionally dropping to the command line, which I've done a handful of times to resolve merge conflicts. I'm not an expert, but not completely new to it either.
anything after # is never posted to the server. It's basically a comment in this specific instance.
I am currently developing a website using html, css, php, and javascript. During this development, I am constantly modifying the css to get just the right look.
I feel that it is impractical to re-upload files or modify them all on GitHub as I continue this development. Am I right that I think that GitHub should be used near the ending stages of development, or is there some functionality of GitHub I do not yet know?
Github (and git in general) can be helpful in the development of a website, but it really depends on your needs. In your case, you mention CSS. If you manage to ruin your CSS beyond repair, then git has your back, since you can revert back to a working version. Github makes this easier by allowing you to directly see the CSS file with all insertions and deletions.
If your content does not undergo drastic changes, and you make occasional smaller changes, then git should work well. Version control is the main goal of git, and since small changes to a file don't involve a brand new copy of the file but rather the inserted and deleted lines, there may be an advantage to using git rather than backing up your entire website every now and then.
So in the end, it depends on what your website is like and how you plan to tweak/update it.
I see no reason why it should not be. The so-called development stage of any project is (should be?) especially messy. Although the benefits of version control is not apparent during this stage, they can not be stressed enough because of its ability
to "go back" in time,
to provide a sensible, repeatable, dependable work environment
to lead into a development process that you can rely upon.
A branching model is also required. This, coupled with a quick and easy devops procedure (which works so well with git) should also be employed from day 1.
When I did my website development, I used git extensively (although not GitHub), and since GitHub has excellent support for private repos, there is no reason not to use it. You could also take a look at GitHub Pages which creates websites from your repos!
We have a fairly large project, and I've decided that Google Code is not quite living up to expectations. Github looks like a much more suitable platform -- but I feel like there's no escape for us. Is it a case of migrating stuff over manually? We're using svn currently, so I understand that we'll need to move to git somehow - is this going to be possible considering that I don't have admin access to our repository? Also, I know this is subjective and I don't want to start a holy war, but please also comment on your feelings about Google Code vs Github. Should we also be considering SourceForge?
I've used all, and now I am using github and I am completely satisfied. Sourceforge had annoying ads and was slow, google code didn't have the features I wanted/needed.
As for moving to github, they have a guide here, the process should be quite simple:
http://help.github.com/svn-importing/
We're using svn currently, so I understand that we'll need to move to git somehow - is this going to be possible considering that I don't have admin access to our repository?
Nope, you can use git svn to convert a repo, even if you don't have admin access. Here's a good tutorial (from one of the GitHub guys, no doubt) that explains how to convert an SVN repo to Git (including how to migrate tags and branches properly, which git-svn doesn't do very well).
but please also comment on your feelings about Google Code vs Github.
I've never used Google Code for personal projects. I know from a visitor's standpoint, I like the interface and tools used by GitHub a lot better.
Should we also be considering SourceForge?
Ugh... I personally think SourceForge is probably the worst of the free source code hosting facilities nowadays.
I think before you go through all the work to migrate to github (which is great yes) I would consider what your problem actually is. If it is just that you are using svn and that is not a distributed version control system you could just migrate your google code repository to be HG (Mercurial) based and you would get all the benefits of a distributed version control system but could otherwise stay at google code (which has great features that github does not have as well..)
Google announced today that they're closing Google Code. They added a migration tool to export projects to GitHub, it just takes one click.
I've been working on an Xcode (iPhone) project with three different persons. We have the project on a Subversion repository, but we still don't completely understand some aspects of the Subversion + Xcode methodology:
1) Each time someone does a commit on a single file, it may appear or not in the project of the other developers. Even though the same person that creates the new files, it adds those files to the Repository and then it commits on those files. Why does that happens? Any suggestions?
2) Each person that is involved on the project can't do a "Commit entire project" without causing a considerable headache to the rest of the developers... any idea how this should be done?.
The working methodology that we are trying to implement is that only one developer (generally the leader of the project) can Commit the entire project but he must inform the rest of the team, so everybody can be prepared to receive a message asking him to discard his changes and read the new files from the repository.
I need suggestions or advice on how to handle a project with multiple developers using subversion.
We have read the Subversion handbook, and many other messages on StackOverflow but I still can't find any useful advice.
Thanks for any tip!
The reason the other guys are not seeing the changes is that they are not informed until they attempt to do an "update", "commit" or "diff" against the repository. SVN is a "pull" system, the repository doesn't inform the clients of anything without a command from them.
Communication is the key. If your developers are generally aware of what is going on in the project, or at least in their corner of the project if it's a large one, they'll minimize the risk of committing code that will upset the project.
Insisting that only one developer is allowed to commit to the repository is overkill IMHO and quite contrary to the whole idea of using version control. You might as well just have a single folder that only that developer can write to using a diffing tool each time.
Make sure your guys do an "Update", Compile, Test cycle before they "Commit". That way they are less likely to commit code that will break the build. If they're just a little careful, you'll all get the hang of it real quick, there really isn't that much to worry about. Good luck.
You are saying "The working methodology that we are trying to implement is that only one developer (generally the leader of the project) can Commit the entire project but he must inform the rest of the team, so everybody can be prepared to receive a message asking him to discard his changes and read the new files from the repository." Why is that needed? Are the other devs not able to checkin or not good enough to checkin code ? Sorry to say that in a drastic way: That's bull-shit. Every developer should be able to commit. If you like to separate the developers from each other you should use branches for this. And as already mentioned the communication is done by svn update/svn status -u etc.
We have 2 kinds of people at my shop:
The ones that starts to check-in the code since the first successful compilation.
The others that only checks-in the code when the project is almost done.
I am part of group 1, and trying to convince people of group 2 to act like me. Their arguments are like the following:
I'm the solo developer of this project.
It's just a prototype, maybe I'll have to rewrite from scratch again.
I don't want to pollute the Source Control with incomplete versions.
If I am right, please help me to raise arguments to convince them. If you agree with them tell me why.
When someone asked for good excuses not to use version control, they got 75 answers and 45 upvotes.
And when they asked Why should my team adopt source control, they got 26 answers.
Maybe you'll find something helpful there.
You don't need "arguments to convince them." Discourse is not a game, and you should not use your work as a debating platform. That's what your spouse is for :) Seriously, though, you need to explain why you care how other devs work on solo projects in which other people are not involved. What are you missing because they don't use source control? Do you need to see their early ideas to understand their later code? If you can sucessfully do that, you may be able to convince them.
I personally use version control at all times, but only because I don't walk a tightrope without a net. Other people have more courage, less time to spend on infrastructure, etc. Note that in 2009, in my opinion, hard disks rarely fail and rewritten code is often better than the code that it replaces.
While I'm answering a question with a question, let me ask another one: does your code need to compile/work/not-break-the-build to be checked in? I like my branches to get good and broken, then fixed, working, debugged, etc. At the same time, I like other devs to use source control however they want. Branches were invented for just that reason: so that people who can't get along do not have to cohabitate.
Here's my view to your points.
1) Even solo developers need somewhere to keep their code when their PC fails. What happens if they accidentally delete a file without source control?
2/3) Prototypes belong in source control so other team members can look at the code. We put our prototype code in a seperate location to the mainline branch. We call it Spike. Here's a great article on why you should keep Spike code- http://odetocode.com/Blogs/scott/archive/2008/11/17/12344.aspx
If I'm the sole developer on a project (in other words, the repository, or part of it, is under my complete control), then I start committing source code as soon as it's written, and I tend to check in after every incremental change, whether or not it works or represents any kind of milestone.
If I'm working in a repository on a project with others, then I tend to try and make my commits such that they don't break the mainline development, pass any tests, etc.
Whether or not it's a prototype, it deserves to go into source control; prototypes represent a lot of work, and lessons learned from them are valuable. Plus, prototypes have an awful habit of becoming production code, which you'll want in source control.
I try to only write code that compiles (everything else is commented out with a TODO/FIXME tag)... and also add everything to source control.
Argument 1: Even as a single dev it's nice to roll back to a running version, to track your progress, etc.
Argument 2: Who cares if it's just a prototype? You might stumble upon a similar problem in six months or so, and then just start looking for this other code...
Argument 3: Why not use more than one repo? I like to file misc stuff to my personal repo.
Start using source control about 20 minutes before you write your first line of your first artifact. There is never a good time to start after you're begun writing things.
some people can only learn from experience.
like a hard drive failure. or coding yourself into a dead-end after deleting code that actually worked
now, i'm not saying that you should erase their hard drive and then taunt them with "if only you had used source control"...but if something like were to happen, hopefully there would be a backup done first ;-)
Early and Often. As the Pragmatic Programmers say, source control is like a time machine, and you never know when you'll want to go back.
I would say to them...
I'm the solo developer of this project.
And when you leave or hand it off we'll have 0 developers. All the more reason to use source control.
The code belongs to the company not you and the company would like some accountability. Checking in code doesn't require too much effort:
svn ci <files> -m " implement ajax support for grid control
Next time someone new wants to make some changes on the grid control or do something related, they will have a great starting point. All projects start off with one or two people. Source control is easier now than it ever was--have they arranged a 30 minute demo of Tortoise SVN with them?
It's just a prototype, maybe I'll have to rewrite from scratch again.
Are they concerned about storage? Storage is cheap. Are they concerned about time wasted on versioning? It takes less time then the cursory email checks. If they are re-writing bits then source control is even more important to be able to reference old bits.
I don't want to pollute the Source Control with incomplete versions.
That's actually a good concern. I used to think the same thing at one point and avoided checking in code until it was nice and clean which is not a bad thing in and of itself but many times I just wanted to goof around. At this point learning about branching helps. Though I wish wish SVN had full support for purging folders like Perforce.
Let see their arguments:
I'm the solo developer of this project.
It's just a prototype, maybe I'll have to rewrite from scratch again.
I don't want to pollute the Source Control with incomplete versions.
First, the 3rd one. I can see the reasoning, but it is based on a bad assumption.
At work, we use Perforce, a centralized VCS, and indeed we only check in source that compile successfully and doesn't break anything (in theory, of course!), after peer review.
So when I start a non trivial change, I feel the need to intermediary commits. For example, recently I started to make some changes (somehow, in solo for this particular task, so I address point 1) on a Java code using JDom (XML parsing). Then I was stuck and wanted to use Java 1.6's built in XML parsing. It was obviously time to keep a trace of the current work, in case my attempt was failed and wanted to go back. Note this case somehow addresses the point 2.
The solution I chose is simple: I use an alternative SCM! Although some centralized VCS like SVN are usable in local (on the developer's computer), I was seduced by distributed VCS and after briefly testing Mercurial (which is good), I found Bazaar better suited to my needs and taste.
DVCS are well suited for this task because they are lightweight, flexible, allow alternative branches, doesn't "pollute" the source directory (all data is in one directory at the root of the project), etc.
By making a parallel source management, you don't pollute the source of other developers, while keeping the possibility to go back or quickly try alternative solutions.
At the end, by committing the final version to the official SCM, the result is the same, but with added security at the level of the developer.
I'd like to add two things. With version control you can:
Revert to last version that worked, or at least check how it looked like. For that you would need SCM which supports changesets / uses whole-tree commits.
Use it to find bugs, by using so called 'diff debugging' by finding commit in history that introduced the bug. You would want SCM which support it in automated or semi-automated fashion.
Personally, I often start version control after the first sucessful compile.
I just wonder why nobody mentioned distributed version control systems in this context: If you could manage to switch over to a distributed system (git, bazaar, mercury), most arguments of your second group would become pointless since they can just start their repository locally and push it to the server when they want (and they can also just remove it, if they want to restart from scratch).
For me, it's about having a consistent process. If you are writing code, it should follow the same source control process that your production code does. That helps build and enforce good development practices across the development team.
Categorizing the code as a prototype or other non-production type of project should just be used to determine where in the source control tree you put it.
We use both CVS (for non .NET projects) and TFS (for .NET projects) where I work, and the TFS repository has a Developer Sandbox folder where developers can check in personal experimental projects (prototypes).
If and when a project starts to get used in production, the code is moved out of the Developer Sandbox folder into it's own folder in the main tree.
I would say you should start adding the source and checking in before you even build the first time. It is then much easier to avoid checking in generated artifacts. I always use some source control, even for my small hobby hacks, just because it automatically filters the relevant from the noise.
So when I start prototyping I might create a project and then before building it I do "git init, git add ., git commit -a -m ..." just so that when I want to move the interesting parts I just clone over using git and then I can add it to the subversion repository or whatever is used where I am working at the moment.
It's called branching people try to get with the program :p Prototyping? Work in a branch. Experimenting? Work in a branch. New feature? Work in a branch.
Merge your branches into the main trunk when it makes sense.
I guess people tend to be laid back when it comes to setting up source control initially if the code may never be used. I have projects I coded belonging to both groups and the ones outside source control are not less important. It is one of those things that gets postponed everyday when it really should not.
On the other hand I sometimes commit too seldom complicating a revert once I screw up some CSS code and not knowing what I changed e.g. to make the footer of the site end up behind the header.
I check-in the project in source control before I start coding.
The first thing I do is create and organize the projects and support files (such as .sln files in .NET development) with the necessary support libraries and tools (usually in a lib folder) I know I will use in my project.
If I already have some code written, then I add it too, even if it is an incomplete application. Then I check-in everything. From there, everything is as usual, write some code, compile it, test it, check-in it...
You probably won't need to branch from this point or revert your changes, but I think it is a good practice to have everything under source control since the beginning, even if you don't have anything to compile.
I create a directory in source control before I start writing code for a project. I do the first commit after creating the project skeleton.
i'm drunk and and i do first git -init and then vim foo.cpp.
Any decent modern source control platform (of which VSS is not one) should not in any way be polluted by putting source code files into it. I am of the opinion that anything that has a life expectancy of more than about 1/2 an hour should be in source control as early as possible. Solo develpment is no longer a valid excuse for not using source control. It is not about security it is about bugs and long term history.