I'm making a website and making multiple design prototypes. I want to keep all of them for future reference.
Is this a suitable place to use branches, or should I just put them in folders?
How should I manage external dependencies (e.g. jQuery), should I include a minified version for every design or keep one for the whole project or just link to an online version?
Branches are fine if:
you want to compare the differences of the same file across several variation of your website
develop in parallel said variations, in isolation (See "When should you branch?").
That won't prevent you top deploy those in different directories (you simply checkout each branch in different folder on your web server)
Any common part (like some JQuery script) should be in a sub-directory which is versioned in its own repo and referenced by your main web repo as a submodule.
Related
I tried a few searches related to this questions on here and didn't see something similar.
As part of a bootcamp I am working on, I have a few mini-projects I have to submit. These projects take between 2-10 hours to complete and typically only contain 1-5 files each. I've seen other students have separate repositories for each of the projects, which allows them to have a clean readme.txt. Initially, I grouped these mini projects into folders within one repository dedicated to these mini projects to reduce clutter. So I can see potential advantages to either approach. At either rate, these small projects were designed to demonstrate very specific skills that are relevant to future employers, so I want them to be available for inspection.
So is there a "best practice" if I am intending to use GitHub as a portfolio of my code? Would it be better to declutter my repositories by keeping small projects together so my bigger projects can shine? Or to separate them so each project is readily in-sight?
have separate repositories for each of the projects, which allows them to have a clean readme.txt.
You can have a clean readme.txt/readme.md with one repo, which would:
explain what the subfolder represents
list your subfolders
link to sub-readme.md (one readme.md per subfolder, per project)
That being said, you can create an account dedicated for this bootcamp, and keep your repos separate, that way you avoid the clutter with your main GitHub account.
The issue that I am trying to figure out is whether it is best to keep the buildfile together with the source code, i.e. trunk and branches, or in some separate location (obviously still under SCM).
The question: (to keep in mind while reading the rest of the text) Buildfile that ensures branch re-buildability at any time (at expense of maintenance), or one that ensures latest bugfixes/improvements (to build process) are quickly used by multiple branches and different projects (at expense of backward compatibility with older branches)
It doesn't matter what we are building, or what technologies are used, but just for the sake of completeness: making a mobile application, building/packaging with ANT, using SVN for SCM.
Buildfile = instructions for your builder/compiler/packager to compile and package an application from source.
Buildfile with code
This is what we have right now. Ant's build.xml is stored alongside the main code in SVN. A number of other supporting "packaging" files (Apple's provisioning profiles and certs) are stored there as well.
Pros:
Single checkout from DEV perspective. When developers checkout the trunk or one of its branches, the buildfile is right there. They don't need to search for it elsewhere. A simple ant build after checkout is all they need.
When changes to the build/packaging process are done on trunk that require some reorganization in code (different file locations, support for compiler constants, etc), I need not worry about breaking existing branches, since each branch gets its own revision.
Cons:
When changes to the build/packaging process are done on trunk that improve the process and fix bugs, I now need to worry about merging those changes to all active branches, which means having to keep track of all dev/feature branches in addition to release branches.
No reusability. A technologically identical project, that only requires a few switches/property changes to the buildfile should be able to use identical buildfile. But because they are spread across multiple project locations (in addition to multiple branches, as from the point above), it becomes a nightmare to do a generic improvement that affects all those locations. Mainly due to the fact that no matter what, these files end up with little "patch-works" here and there, and eventually with conflicting merges and ever-so-slightly different processes that cannot be resolved without putting one of the projects on hold and modifying that process to "catch up" with the other.
Buildfile separate from code
To address the cons of the previous scenario in regards to re-using a single file and avoid a plethora of small fixes all over the place, I was thinking of keeping the build file separate. Shareable between the trunk, branches and other similar projects.
Pros:
Single file to modify, improve and bugfix, reusable by multiple other projects.
Cons:
No "single checkout" for DEVs (but it can be solved with svn externals or other linking solution
Breaking old/existing builds. Since there is only one version of the file now, introducing an improvement that requires code restructuring would make it incompatible with older branches. When that older branch needs to be rebuild (urgent fix to already released software), the build file will no longer work. Yes, it's solvable by getting a previous revision of the file, however:
It is not directly obvious which previous revision had worked with this branch
The older revision may be missing some other critical bugfixes to the build process.
Toss up question
So for me it is a toss up between making my life easier and only maintaining one file for bugfixes and improvements, and thus ensuring that projects use identical processes, latest bugfixes to the build process, etc. Or making developer's life easier by providing a single point of checkout, and ensuring branch "stability/re-buildability" because the buildfile that's checked in with the branch is guaranteed to work with that branch.
Is there a proper way for this? What is the proper way for this? Am I approaching this wrong?
I would suggest tagging your code with a version number every time you build. IF you ever want to roll back to a revision , you can always create a new branch from the tag of that revision and use the build.xml from that revision
You can also publish all your artefacts into a revision named directory. If you want to rollback you can just use the artefacts from this directory instead of going through the build process again .
Your build file should always be part of your code . That way a developer can check out his/her code into an IDE and start building from there for his local testing.
If you have env related configurations that are different per environment you should separate it out into a deployment configuration that is used when the code is deployed.
If you want to reuse your build files across projects , you can create a master build file with macros that is fetched prior to starting a build. The only thing you need to do is override the macros in your local project if you want to override the default behaviour
I am in the process of moving to Git from SVN. In SVN I had multiple eclipse projects in a single SVN repository that is convenient for browsing projects. I was going to move to having one git repository per eclipse project but EGit suggests doing otherwise.
The guide for EGit suggests putting multiple projects into a single Git repository.
Looking at similar questions such as this suggest one project per repository.
Which approach is best practice and what do people implement?
It depends on how closely-related these projects are. Ask yourself the following questions:
Will they always need to be branched/tagged together?
Will you want to commit over all projects, or does a commit mostly only touch one project?
Does the build system operate on all of them or do they have a boundary there?
If you put them all in one, some things from above will be easier. You will only have to branch/tag/stash/commit in one repository, as opposed to doing it for every repository separately.
But if you need to have e.g. separate release cycles for the projects, then it's necessary to have each project in an independent repository.
Note that you can always split up a repository later, or combine multiple repositories into one again without losing history.
Combining is a bit harder to do than splitting, so I would go for one repository first and see how it goes.
I use 1 repo per project.
Some reasoning:
When you discover you messed up something after several commits, it's much easier to fix when it's just one project. Just think about, you did commits to two other projects and now you need to fix the commit you did on the 3rd project.
As Fedir said, your history and log is much cleaner. It only shows the commits for that project.
It works better with the development workflow I have. I have a master branch for production, develop branch for, well, development, and I create branches to implement features (you can read more about it here: http://blog.avirtualhome.com/development-workflow-using-git/)
When you work in a team, and so "share" the git repo, do the team members really need all the other projects as well?
Just a few thoughts, but what it boils down to: Do what works for you.
I have multiple projects (Eclipse projects) and have tried different things to find out what worked best in terms of actual daily development. Here is what I found and I think that most people would find the same thing if they kept track of the results and analyzed the results objectively.
In short applying the following rules will give the best results:
Make a separate repository for each project group.
Each project group consist of a group of projects that are tightly connected to each other, that should be administered together and that cannot be easily decoupled from each other.
A project group can contain a single project.
A project group that contains multiple projects should be examined to see if some of its projects can be decoupled from each other so it can be split into smaller project groups that are still contain projects that are tightly connected to each other, that should be administered together and that cannot be easily decoupled from each other.
The following guidelines explain this process for determining which projects to put in the same repository in more detail:
If a project is not closely connected to any other project (for example, the project can be opened without other projects being opened and no other projects relies on the project being opened when they are opened) then you should definitely place it in its own repository for the reasons explained in the answers above this one.
If a project is dependent upon other projects or other projects depend upon the project then it comes down to exactly how connected are they upon each other, how well they can be packaged together and how easily can they be decoupled from each other.
A) For example a testing project that contains junit test classes to test the classes of a main project is a case where the two projects are very connected with each other, can easily be packaged together and cannot be easily decoupled from each other. These projects should be placed in the same repository for the reasons explained in part C below.
B) In a case where one project relies on another project to provide some sort of shared resources it really comes down to how well that they can be administered together and how easily that they can be decoupled from each other. For example if the project with the shared resources is relied upon by many projects, then it should be put in its own repository because the other unrelated projects are impacted by changes to the shared source code project. In a case like this, the shared resources project should be decoupled from the dependent projects instead of being directly connected to the dependent projects. (For example, it would be better to create versioned archive files [Jar files with a name like "projectName".1.0.1.0.jar for example] and include a copy of those in each project instead of sharing the resources by linking the projects together.)
C) If the multiple projects are connected, can be easily administered together but cannot be easily decoupled from each other, then it depends upon how tightly connected they are with each other.
I) If the projects are put into one repository, then the projects will be kept in sync with each other in the repository each time there is a commit, which can be a real life saver if the projects are tightly connected. However, this also creates the issues noted in the answers above this one.
II) If the projects are put into separate repositories, then you will have to take care to keep there commits in sync with each other and be sure to include some sort of mechanism to indicate which commits belong to the same sync point across the projects (Perhaps something like including the same sync point number in the comments for the commit of each project when a group of commits is done across the projects.)
III) So in cases like this, it is almost always better to put these projects together into a single repository to reduce the overhead of human effort in syncing the commits and to avoid human error should the commits need to be backed out. The only time that it might be better to place them in separate repositories is when only one of the projects is being changed regularly and the other connected projects are rarely changed.
I think this question is related to one I answered here. basically Git by its nature supports a very fine granular structure when it comes to projects/repositories. I have read and been taught that 1 repository per project is almost always best practice. You lose almost nothing by keeping the projects separate and gain a lot as other have been describing.
Probably, it will be more performant to work with if You will create multiple git repositories.
If You will make a branch, only project's files would be branched, and not all the projects.
Small project it will be faster to analyze, to commit. Operations will take less of time.
The log will be more clear also, You could make more granulated configuration if You will have multiple git repositories.
Over time, I developed a variety of utility functions, classes and controls that I reuse across multiple projects. For each of those projects I have a Mercurial repository and I copy the re-usable projects. Obviously this is bad since if I fix a bug in one of the reusable components, I have to copy the code manually in all repository and I could make a mistake in the process.
How do you handle such situation? How to share code across multiple repository with Mercurial in such way that if I do an update in one repository, I can easily integrate with the others.
Check out subrepositories: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/Subrepository
They won't help you keep the other copies up to date (you'll have to do that manually), but they will make that easy (you'd use hg pull; hg update in the subrepo, then commit the parent repo).
Another option (which I use on a different project) is to mandate a layout, then simply assume that the "utilities" repository is stored at ../utils, relative to each "real" repository.
This is perhaps not a question unique to Mercurial, but that's the SCM that I've been using most lately.
I work on multiple projects and tend to copy source code for libraries or utilities from a previous project to get a leg up on starting a new project. The problem comes in when I want to merge all the changes I made in my latest project, back into a "master" copy of those shared library files.
Since the files stored in disjoint repositories will have distinct version histories, Mercurial won't be able to perform an intelligent merge if I just copy the files back to the master repo (or even between two independent projects).
I'm looking for an easy way to preserve the change history so I can merge library files back to the master with a minimum of external record keeping (which is one of the reasons I'm using SVN less as merges require remembering when copies were made across branches).
Perhaps I need to do a bit more up-front organization of my repository to prepare for a future merge back to a common master.
Three solutions, pick your favorite:
Put all projects into one repository.
Make a separate repository for shared code and different repository for each project.
One repository with Subrepositories: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/subrepos, keep all common code in one subrepo and different subrepos for each project.
Copying actual files between repositories with no common ancestors will never be optimal as history is not preserved.
I'd recommend against your "copy the sourcecode" practice but use binary distribution for your custom libraries instead. These binaries are checked in along the sourcecode.
reduces build-time
no overhead of tracking changes in all copies of the library
you can use different versions of the same library in different projects.
EDIT: And for the issue with "common" or "toolbox" libaries in general, read this post from ayende.
use the transplant extension