Related
We are working on a single project, and also committing code at the end of day on SVN so that can get all update project. But issues is very often our code getting errors while committing code and projects get empty if someone get update at that time. So my question is are there any set of rules which we've to follow on committing so that every one go on straight path and no one get in trouble and save a lot time from these errors.
Thanks in advance. Cheers
Search Google, something similar to "source control best practices".
Top result has several tips. Sounds like the biggest problem you're facing is integrating with others' changes. Perhaps look into the following sections:
Incorporate others' changes frequently
Share your changes frequently
Coordinate with your co-workers
Investigate why you get errors. Blind application of rules is not good.
For example:
person A committed a code producing compilation error
why?
he finished his task, but hasn't checked build before committing to the trunk
why?
the entire build it too slow
solution: speed-up build, set up continuous build system which will check every commit and notify developers about problems as soon as possible
Another example:
person B committed a code which breaks the build
why?
he wanted to store his changes, but the task is not finished
solution: advice him to create a branch, when the task is finished it can be merged to the trunk (if branch lives for long time, merge changes from trunk to it periodically, then the merge will not be a problem)
There possible other scenarios. With more details you will be able to ask more precise question on StackOverflow and get better answers.
In case of use of SVN co-ordination is must between the team.
Make sure whenever you commit the code you have a idea about what are you committing.
The golden rule is "One developer One class".
If at all two different developers are working on same class. Ask them to maintain a document on what changes they have made. And, most important to mark a comments in a class it self.
There are some important things which need to be followed while committing the code. Whenever you see a conflict in your local files and server files. Make sure you go through every conflict and select the appropriate action.
Understand one important thing, whenever SVN is used one persons mistake can affect everyone.
Whenever possible, don't edit the same line of code as someone else
Leave meaningful comments on your commit messages
Comment your code
Make sure that all the code you commit compiles and runs as it should
Commit when appropriate ie: are passing off part of your code to be used by others or are done working on a feature
Make sure to communicate with other team members
If you find code that you don't know what it does, ask the author
If you're making major changes that will take a while to implement, use a branch and then merge it back in
I struggled asking that question but here it is.
I am using source control since several years for multiple projects using different systems (svn, hg, git) and I learned how to improve my messages by following guidelines etc.
But as far as I can remember I never ever had a look at them afterwards.
So ... how do you profit from your own commit messages? When I need to go back because I smashed something and need a fresh start, I usually just go back to the latest "node" (where I started or merged a branch). Do I write those messages just for people monitoring the project who are curious what is going on?
Regards
You write them as an aid to your future self, and others on the team. To give you some background of when I have found them useful:
I used to work on a project where commit messages were invaluable - on more than one occasion I used them to track down code that was years old. On that project our bug tracking system was also integrated with our VCS (ClearCase). So when you checked in a change, it would record the bug number in the commit comments. This was very helpful to allow you to trace back exactly what was changed and why.
So to sum it up, although commit messages may seem pointless if you are just starting out (especially if you are the only one working on the project), they become invaluable once you have a successful product that is supported in production by multiple developers.
Update
Another useful feature of commit messages is that they require you to review and summarize the changes you just made. Even if I remember what I have changed, I will often do a quick diff of a file before checking it in. I will briefly read it all over again to make sure there are no typo's, that I changed everything I meant to, etc. This is a simple way to review your code for those small little bugs that would otherwise find their way into your code. Anyway, after doing this I have a clear picture of what changed, so I use this to write a concise summary of the change when checking in the file. This is a simple habit that helps increase code quality with little effort on your part.
"Send me a list of the things you did in the past two weeks" - Boss
Your messages are more for other users than yourself. Although I make sure to place good commit messages even on personal repos as well. Helps when you get sidetracked on a project and visit it months down the line to get a handle of the recent work done on a project.
One thing I've found is that the commit messages are a good way to keep myself from not committing often enough. If I can't put the changes into a short commit message I probably should have committed the changes earlier.
In the best case, a commit is bound to a work item in a feature/bug tracker. That way you will be able to easily see which feature/bug has been implemented/fixed. This is not only useful to know if a certain revision contains a feature or bug fix but also to easily create a release note.
What would be the point of a commit without a note to tell you what it is? It's like asking 'Why do books have titles on the sides?', or perhaps 'Why do books have indexes and page numbers?'. It seems to me that a source control log that didn't have a description for each change wouldn't be very useful.
Reasons you may need to refer to the commit message include
A bug has surfaced and you want to find when that part of the code was changed last
You decide to undo some changes and need to decide which revision to revert to
For either of these possibilities, without good commit messages, you would be left looking through the diffs for every single commit until you found what you were looking for in the code.
I am starting to get a reputation at work as the "guy who breaks the builds".
The problem is not that I am writing dodgy code, but when it comes to checking my fixes back into source control, it all goes wrong.
I am regularly doing stupid things like :
forgetting to add new files
accidentally checking in code for a half fixed bug along with another bug fix
forgetting to save the files in VS before checking them in
I need to develop some habits / tools to stop this.
What do you regularly do to ensure the code you check in is correct and is what needs to go in?
Edit
I forgot to mention that things can get pretty chaotic in this place. I quite often have two or three things that Im working on in the same code base at any one time. When I check in I will only really want to check in one of those things.
A few suggestions:
try work on one issue at a time. It's easy to make unrelated changes to the codebase that then end up being committed as one big chunk with a poor log message. Git is excels here since you can so easily move switch branches, and stash and cherry pick changes.
run the status command before a commit to see which files you've touched and if you've created new files that need to be added to version control.
run the diff command to see what you've actually changed. Often times you find that you've left in some debug logging that should be taken out or made some unnecessary change that is just cluttering up the diff. Try to make your diffs as small and clean as possible.
make sure your working copy builds with your changes in it
update before checking in and make sure that your working copy builds with other peoples changes in it
run what ever smoke test suite you might have to make sure that your changes work correctly
make small and frequent commits. It's a lot easier to figure out what has broken the build when the breaking commit is small.
Other things that the team can do is setup a continuous integration server like David M suggested so that the broken build is discovered as soon as possibly and automatically.
I usually always do a Get Latest before, then build. If build is good then I check in my code.
Here is what I have been doing. I have used ClearCase and CVS in the past for source control, and most recently I have been using Subversion and Visual Studio 2008 as my IDE.
Make my code changes and build on the local machine.
Make sure they do, in fact, fix the bug in question.
Run an SVN update on the local machine and repeat steps 1 and 2.
Run through the automated unit tests to verify that they pass.
If an automated smoke test is available, which automatically tests a lot of the system's capabilities, run it. Verify that the results are correct.
Then go to the build machine and run the build script.
If the project's configuration has changed, this could definitely break a build. Perform an SVN update on the build machine, whether the build script does that or not. Open the build machine's copy of the IDE, and do a complete rebuild. This will show you whether the build box has any problems that you have taken care of on your machine but not on the build box.
The suggestions to keep separate branches for each issue are also very good, if you can keep track of all of the issues you are working on.
First, use multiple working copies (a.k.a sandboxes) - one per issue. So, if you've been working on some complex feature for a while, and you need to deal with a quick bug fix on the same project, check out a new clean working copy and do the bug fix there. With independent working copies for each issue there is no confusion about which changes to commit from the working copy to the reposistory.
Second, before committing changes, always perform the following three steps:
Buld the software.
Run a smoke test (does it start and run without crashing).
Inspect the changes you're checking in by diffing your changes against the baseline.
These should be repeated after any merge operations (e.g. after an SVN update).
At my workplace, the safety net for this is peer review. That is, get someone else to build, run, and reproduce your solution on their machine, on their view.
I cannot recommend this enough. It has caught so many omissions, would-be problems, and other accidental pieces of junk to make it a valuable part of the process. Not to mention that the mere knowledge that you have to place your work in front of someone else before having it go on to the main branch means that you raise your own quality standards.
In the past I have used branching in Clear Case to help with this issue. The process I used is below. I've never used SorceDepot so I do not know how this can be adapted to work with it.
Create a branch for the bug fix
Code all changes on the branch
Code Review
Merge to stable branch in a different view (the different view is important)
BEFORE checking in: compile, test, and run
Check in code to stable branch
By creating the branch and then merging the changes to a different view (I use Merge Manager to do the merge) any files that were not included or checked in immediately cause issues. This way everything gets tested as it will be when checked in on the stable branch.
The best thing to avoid your problems, is to use hooks, that are provided in most SCMs (they are for sure in SVN and Mercurial, and I believe they must be in other advanced SCMs). Attach unit tests to the hook and make it run every time someone checks code in - exactly before it is checked in. This way you will achieve two things:
code in SCM repo will always pass the tests,
you won't make most simple mistakes, because they should be easily detectable, if you have decent test suite.
I like having Tortoise plugins for Windows Explorer. The file icons are all badged with committed, modified or not added icons making it very easy to see what status the files are in. I also enable the meta data for Modified so I can sort changed files in the list (Details) view, where they bubble to the top so I can see them.
I bet there is a Tortoise* plugin for your SCM, I saw one for Mercurial and SVN (and CVS, ugh). I really wish Mac OS X's Finder would accept plugins like Tortoise, its so much easier than having to pop open a dedicated app most of the time.
Get someone else to go through "every" change "before" you check in the code.
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.
Eric suggests that you read your team's diffs every morning. Can I get TFS to automate this in some way? Ideally I'd like an email with all of the differences in, but I'd settle for a link to each of the commits.
As someone who works for Eric and who has the behaviour of checking the diffs each morning let me explain what I do. I'd like to think that I was one of the people he was thinking about when he wrote the post, but I know for a fact that he didn't know I did the diff checking each morning :-)
In Eclipse I use the Team, Synchronize... functionality to compare my local workspace with the latest on the server. As I do a get latest frequently, this tells me what has happened since I last did this (i.e. what changed while I wasn't looking).
In Visual Studio, I can do a similar thing by right clicking on the root folder of the area that interests me and selecting Compare... and then doing a compare of the Workspace version with the latest version.
Alternatively, you can just do a "History..." on the folder that is of interest and a brief scan down the history view will show you what has been happening and you can go look at what is interesting. It also encourages you to leave good check-in comments, and to encourage your developers to do the same :-)
I used to have email alerts configured for each check-in (Team, Project Alerts...), but I just ended up ignoring them most of the time. I even have a robotic rabbit configured to talk to me when someone does a check-in or runs a build - but this is only useful during the day, not checking what has happened the previous day while I was asleep (I live in a different time-zone to the rest of my colleagues so they do a lot of work while I sleep and vice-versa, making the practise of diff-checking even more useful)
In theory it would be possible to write a program that did generate you a diff each day between the latest version and your workspace version, however I've never bothered myself. This is partly because as I find the most value of the practise comes in exploring the changes that were made each day rather than just reading about them. I also admit that I wasn't aware that anyone else in the world was doing this daily diff routine - I figured I was alone in my code voyerisum, but obviously not!
UPDATE Feb 12, 2009: The following blog post just came to my attention.
http://blogs.msdn.com/abhinaba/archive/2008/07/07/auto-generating-code-review-email-for-tfs.aspx
It talks about (and provides source for) a tool called CRMail that will generate an email from a shelveset that will contain links back to Team System Web Access to show the diffs for each change in the changeset. It would be possible to modify this source to get it to show you diffs between changesets if you wanted to. Then you would just need to hook it up to run either as a nightly scheduled task or on every check-in by subscribing to the check-in event from TFS.
Have you explored setting up a report on the project portal that would show diffs based on date? I haven't done this (and I'm at home now so I can't investigate it), but I know that there is a lot of information you can get out of the portal. Whether you can get code diffs, I don't know.
The other alternative would be automating something with tfsadmin or the power tools. Again, not at work so I can't look at it, though the power tools seem like they may make it possible to do what you want from the docs.
A quick solution would be to configure project alerts to send you one email per changeset.
Filter these into a separate folder in your email client, and review them at your leisure.