Anyone out there using LiveCode in a multi developer project?
Either way, can someone recommend a good source control system / plugin to use?
We've looked at MagicCarpet but since it is no longer developed we wish to use something else.
Thanks
I'm working on a solution to this problem by exporting the stack file as a structured directory of script, json and image files which will diff and merge nicely in most VCS. It is not yet available but the intention is it will be open source. My goal is to demonstrate it at the RunRevLive conference in May.
Here's the repo for lcVCS https://github.com/montegoulding/lcVCS
I have put a git library stack on revOnline (libVersionControl) that exports to structured xml files that git can handle. It works as far as it goes, but I have hopes that Monte's solution will supersede this effort.
revOnline link to stack
Yes, our team has been using LiveCode with multiple developers. Since the Livecode community is still young, acquiring good source control tools can be a challenge. Our solution has been to break code into modules (stack files). When there are updates to merge into the main codebase, we clone our existing codebase, and merge code changes manually using line by line compare in a text editor. This is not a fun process, but is much less painful than it sounds.
If I were to redesign the system, we would simply use Git (Github.com etc.). There is no reason this would not work with Livecode stacks.
We use LiveCode in a small team with Subversion.
We don't have a perfect solution, but it is very lightweight; we all use a custom extension to the standard toolbar, which among other things has a 'save+backup' button. When we started using it with Subversion, we added code to this button which saves an XML sidecar file for the stack. The file contains all the scripts, custom properties, and optionally fields (controlled by user property in each stack). In our case almost all of our work is in scripts, so this works for us.
The effect is that each time we commit to SVN, we're always committing two files, the LiveCode stack and the accompanying sidecar file - the latter works fine for diffing etc.
Where this lets us down is that we don't have any solution for merging. If we were working on larger systems more actively, we'd also modify I expect look to modify the sidecar format into a complete folder of files. For now however this makes the situation workable (and it takes no noticeable time to generate the sidecar file).
Happy to share code if that was useful.
I know of a tool thats being worked on that is going to really help in this regard. When he showed it to me it looked very functional already. But I'm not sure when he will share it with the community.
So the point is, its just a matter of time before people's stuff comes together to make a turn key solution for this.
Related
I'm currently working on a project that's been going on for several years straight. The development-team is small (less than 5 programmers), and source-control is virtually non-existent, and the deployment-process as is is just based on manually moving files from one server to another. The project is in classic ASP, so building isn't an issue, as both deployment and testing is just about getting the files to where they need to be and directing the browser at the correct location. Currently all development is done on a network-drive which is also the test-server. The test-server is only available when inside the the local network (can be accessed trough vpn), and is available on the address 'site.test' in the browser (requires editing to the hosts-file on all the clients, but since there are so few of us that hasn't proven to be any problem at all). All development is done in visual studio. Whenever a file is change the developer that changed the file is required to write the file he changed into a word-document and include a small description as of what was changed and why. Then, whenever there's supposed to be a version-bump (deployment), our lead-developer goes trough the word-document and copies every file (file by file) that has changed over to the production-server. Now, I don't think I need to tell you that this method is very error prone (a developer might for instance forget to add that he changed some dependency, and that might cause problems when deployed), and there's a lot of work involved with deploying.
And here comes the main question. I've been asked by the lead developer to use some time and see if I can come up with a simple solution that can simplify and automate the "version-control" and the deployment. Now, the important thing is that it's as easy as posible to use for the developers. Two of the existing developers have worked with computers for a long time, and are pretty stuck up in their routines, so for instance changing it into something like git bash wouldn't work at all. Don't get me wrong, I love git, but the first time one of them got a merge-conflict they wouldn't know what to do at all. Also, it would be ideal to change to a more distributed development-process where the developers wouldn't need to be logged into vpn (or need internet at all) to develop, and the changes they made offline could be synced up when they were done with them. Now, I've looked at Teem Development Server from Microsoft because of it's strong integration with Visual Studio. As far as I've tested it seems possible to make Visual Studio prompt the user if they want to check in changes whenever the user closes Visual Studio. Now, using TFS for source-control would probably eliminate most of the problems with the development, but how about deployment? Not to mention versioning? As far as I've understood (I've only looked briefly at TFS), TFS has a running number for every check-in, but is it possible to tell TFS that this check-in should be version 2.0.1 of the system (for example), and then have it deploy it to the web-server? And another problem, the whole solution consists of about 10 directories with hundreds of files in, though the system itself (without images and such) is only 5 directories, and only these 5 should be deployed to the server, is this possible to automate?
I know there's a lot of questions here, but what is most important is that I want to automate the development process (not the coding, but the managing of the code), and the deployment process, and I want to make it as simple as possible to use. I don't care if the setup is a bit of work, cause I got enough time at hand to setup whatever system that fits our needs, but the other devs should not have to do a lot of setup. If all of the machines that should use the system needs to be setup once, that's no problem at all, cause I can do that, but there shouldn't bee any need to do config and setups as we go.
Now, do any of you have any suggestions to what systems to use/how to use them, in order to simplify the described processes above? I've worked with several types of scm-systems before (GIT, HG and SubVersion), but I don't have any experience with build-systems at all (if that is needed). Articles, and discussion on how to efficiently setup systems like this would be greatly appreciated. In advance, thanks.
This is pretty subjective territory, but I think you need to get some easy wins first. The developers who are "stuck up in there ways" are the main roadblock here. They are going to see change as disruptive and not worth it. You need to slowly and carefully go for the easy wins.
First, TFS is probably not going to be a good choice. It's expensive, heavy, and the source control in TFS is pretty lousy. Go for Subversion: it's easy to setup and easy to use, and it's free. Get that in place first, and get the devs using it. Much easier said than done.
Later (possibly much later), once the devs are using it and couldn't imagine life without a VCS, then you could switch to Hg or Git if you need first class branching and all those other nice features.
Once you have Subversion in place, you can use something like JetBrains TeamCity or Jenkins, both of which are free and easy to use. However, I'm just assuming you don't have a lot of tests and build scripts that the CI server is really going to be running, so it's far more important that you get VCS first. In all things: keep it as simple as possible. Baby steps. Get some wins, build trust, repeat.
I can't even begin to think where to begin with this! Intending no offense directed at you, apart from the mention of git and HG, this post could have been written 10 years ago.
1) Source control - How can a team of developers possibly work effectively without some form of source control? Hell, even if it's Visual Source Safe (* shudder *) at least it would be something. You have to insist that the team implement source control. You know what's available so I won't get into preaching about that. (However, Subversion with TortoiseSVN has worked quite well for me.)
2)
"write the file he changed into a
word-document and include a small
description as of what was changed and
why"
You have got to be kidding... What happens if two developers change the same file? Does the lead then have to manually merge two changes that s/he extracts from the word doc? Please see #1 and explain to them how commit comments work.
Since your don't really need to "build" (i.e. compiled, etc.) anything, you should be able to solve most of your problems with some simple tools. First and foremost you need to use a source control solution. Yes, the developers would have to learn how to use another tool (EEEK!). You could do the initial leg work of getting the code into the repository. If you have file access to the other developers machines, you could even copy a checked-out working copy to their machines so they wouldn't have to do the checkout themselves (not really that hard). You could then use all the creamy goodness of version control to create version branches when each deployment needs to be done. You could write simple scripts using the command line SVN tools to check out said branches and automatically copy the files to the target server(s). Using a tool like BeyondCompare, the copy process could be restricted to only the files that are different (plus BC can handle an FTP target if that is an issue). By enforcing commit comments on the SVN repo, you'll guarantee that the developers provide comments, and for each set of changes between releases you could very easily generate a list of all those comments using the CSM log retrieval features.
I am using Eclipse with the "statet plugin for R".
I am looking for a way to do collaborative development (like in google docs: allow people to modify code at the same time). Any preferred plugin for that? I have seen eXtreme Collaborative Development Environment but I don't know if it is good?
I wouldn't use a shared drive, I'd set up a source code respository using Mercurial or Git and use that. I'm sure there's plugins for those for Eclipse.
How would you stop it being a free-for-all? In my experience, when developing code you want to control change, not have it forced upon you when you aren't ready for it.
Consider this scenario. You have a hard to explain defect in your code. You are steadily debugging it, throwing different data at it, looking at intermediate values etc. You are just about to trap it when BOOM, somebody else changes some other code and your results change because of that.
Spacedman is right, use a revision control system of your choice and keep in control of change.
If you want to do something like pair programming, but remotely, then use a remote screen, e.g. VNC, with Skype so that you can explain to the other what you are trying to achieve.
I've used egit to add git functionality to Eclipse with StatEt and it works well. Allows others to edit code in whatever way works best for them (one repository, several individual repositories with frequent merges etc)
There are plugins out there that will facilitate realtime code sharing. They commonly work by having all individual devs have their own copy of the files and synching changes back-n-forth on the fly. If conflicts are found you get to decide how to resolve them explicitly.
Here is one such plugin from ECF project:
http://wiki.eclipse.org/DocShare_Plugin
I would recommend a source control system for day-to-day development. Real-time code sharing works best for holding short-term collaborative editing or debugging sessions, doing code reviews, etc.
I'm developing a web app.
If I include a jQuery plugin (or the jQuery file itself), this has to be put under my static directory, which is under SCM, to be served correctly.
Should I gitignore it, or add it, even if I don't plan on modifying anything from it?
And what about binary files (graphic resources) that might come with it?
Thanks in advance for any advice!
My view is that everything you need for your application to run correctly needs to be managed. This includes third-party code.
If you don't put it under SCM, how is it going to get deployed correctly on your production systems? If you have other ways of ensuring that, that's fine, but otherwise you run the risk that successful deployment is a matter of people remembering to do all the right things, rather than some automated low-risk "push the button" procedure.
If you don't manage it under SCM or something similar, how do you ensure that the versions you develop against and test against are the same? And that they're the same as production? Debugging an issue caused by a version difference you don't notice can be horrible.
I generally add external resources to my project directly. Doing so facilitates deployment and ensures that if someone changes the version of this file in your project, you have a clear audit history of what happened in case it causes issues in the code that you've written. Developers should know not to modify these external resources.
You could use something like git submodules, I suppose, but I haven't felt that this is worth the hassle in the past.
Binary files from external sources can be checked in to the project as well, although if they're extremely large you may want to consider a different approach.
There aren't a lot of reasons not to put external resources like jQuery into your repo:
If you pull it down from jQuery every time you check out or deploy, you have less control over which version you're using. This holds true for most third-party libraries; you probably don't want to upgrade your libraries without testing with your code to see if it breaks something.
You'll always have a complete copy of your site when you check out your repository and you won't need to go seeking resources that may have become unavailable.
For small (in terms of filesize) things like jQuery and images, I'd just add them unless you're really, really concerned about space.
It depends.
These arguments relate to having a copy of the library on your system and not pulling it from it's original location.
Arguments in favour:
It will ensure that everything needed for your project can be found in one place when someone else joins your development team. I've lost count of the number of times I've had to scramble around looking for the right versions of libraries in order to be able to get something working.
If you make any modifications to the library you can make these changes to the source controlled version so when a new version comes out you use the source control's merging tools to ensure your edits don't go missing.
Arguments against:
It could mean everyone has a copy of the library locally - unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server.
Deploying could be problematical - again unless you map the 3rd party tools to a central server and don't include them in the deploy script.
I'm assuming Mercurial is for having an updated website and it archiving the old stuff? Easy to test things and such?
My question is, how exactly should I get started and can somebody give me a crash course in using Mercurial and using the following techs below:
Notepad++ for coding
FTP
PHP/MySQL
Jquery & other js libraries
I use windows and would like to keep things fairly simple. I'm developing 1 website currently and want some kind of CVS system in place. Or should I just stick to my current edit file in notepad++ and upload via ftp method and make a backup copy of everything every once and a while?
Any thoughts?
EDIT: I'm doing http://bugtracker.gttools.com/public/wiki/bluehost/Mercurial right now in order to try and 'install' it.
I'd definitely recommend taking a read through the excellent HGinit http://hginit.com/ site in addition to the official guide.
Definitely try and move across to using some form of version control (SVN, git or mercurial) as it'll save you down the line.
Mercurial is a distributed version control system, much like Git but allegedly slightly simpler.
A good tutorial by Joel Spolsky can be found here.
If you read up on https://www.mercurial-scm.org/guide under Basic Workflow you should be able to figure out how to work with it while editing files using Notepad++ etc.
From your question it sounds like you don't know much about version control (like you have a very basic grasp of what it is and why it is useful). So perhaps the first thing you should do is read up on that in general first of all.
But in terms of using Mercurial I don't think you will find a better insight into how to use it and why it is so good than Joel's tutorial, which you can find here hginit Tutorial
HGInit is a good tutorial for mercurial. Basically you have to hg init in the directory you want to be under version control. If you don't like the command line, you can also use gui tools, like tortoisehg.
If I'm not mistaken you also want to upload the latest version to the website. If I'm right ftp access won't be enough for this (unless you define a post-commit hook, that uploads the directory using ftp).
I'm assuming Mercurial is for having
an updated website and it archiving
the old stuff? Easy to test things and
such?
Not sure what you mean here. Mercurial (and all version control systems) lets you archive your changes as you make them, label and manage your releases so you can track code that goes together, and branch when you need to do parallel development.
You should be checking in your changes as you make them. If anything goes wrong during development, you can roll back to the last good version you had. It's a great way to make sure that you don't lose days and days of work because you forgot to check in.
Check in early, check in often.
Given a project I'm about to start there will be documentation produced.
What is the best practice for this?
Should the documents live with the code and assets or should there be a separate documentation store?
Edit
I'd like a wiki but I will need to print the documents etc... It's a university project.
It really depends on your team. Where I work, we keep documentation in a wiki which is linked in with our team website. For the purposes of shipping documentation, the wiki can be exported and we run it through a parser that "fancifies" the look and feel of the documentation for customer purposes.
Storing the documentation with the code (typically in your source repository) is not a bad idea. Just make sure to keep them separated. For example, keep a docs folder which is on the same level with your src folder in your repository. This way, you can quickly ship the current documentation, you can easily track revisions, and anybody new to the project can immediately jump in without having to go to multiple locations for information.
Storing it in source control is fine.
This is an interesting question -- basically, what others are saying is right about generated documentation, source files and templates/etc. should be stored in source control and generated during your build process.
As far as requirements/specs/etc. documentation, I have worked both ways, and I very much prefer using SharePoint or a Wiki/document portal that is designed for document sharing/versioning. The reason is, most non-developer folks aren't comfortable working with source control systems, and you don't gain any of the advantages of intelligent merging if you are using a binary format like Word. Plus it's nice to have internet-based access so you can reference and work on the docs in a distributed team without people having to install extra software.
Here's a 2017 summary of the options and my experience:
(extreme 1) Completely external (e.g. a wiki, Google Docs, LaTeX, MS Word, MS Onedrive)
People aren't bothered about keeping it up to date (half of them don't even know where to find the page that needs updating since it's so out of the trenches).
wiki platforms are “captive user interfaces” - your data gets stored in their proprietary schemas and is not easy to examine with a simple text editor (Confluence is even worse in that you have no access to the plaintext content at all anymore)
(extreme 2) Completely internal (e.g. javadoc)
pollutes the source code, and is usually too low level to be of any use. Well-written source code is still the best form of low level documentation.
However, I feel package-info.java files are underutilized.
(balance) Colocated documentation (e.g. README.md)
A good half way solution, with the benefits of version control. If a single README.md file is not enough, consider a doc/ folder. The only drawback of this I've seen is whether to source control helpful graphics (e.g. png files) and risk bloating the repo.
One interesting way to avoid this problem is to use plaintext diagram tools (I find Grapheasy and Text Diagram to be a breath of fresh air).
plaintext can be easily read even if your rendering engine changes as the years go by.
Github's success is in no small part thanks to its README.md located in the root of the project.
One tiny disadvantage of this approach though is that your continuous integration system will trigger a new build each time you make edits to the README.md file.
If you are writing versioned user documentation associated with each release of the product, then it makes sense to put the documentation in source control along with its associated product release.
If you are writing internal developer documentation, use automated internal source code documentation (javadoc, doxygen, .net annotations, etc) for source level documentation and a project wiki for design level documentation.
I think most of us in the industry are not really following best-practices and it of course also depends a lot on your situation.
In an agile environment where you would have a very iterative process of release, you will want to "travel light". In this particular case, Jason's suggestion of a separate Wiki really works great.
In a water-fall/big bang model, you will have a better opportunity to have a decent documentation update with each new release. Also you will need to clearly document what version of the requirements was agreed on and have loads of documentation for every tiny change you do to requirements (due to the effects it has on subsequent stages). Often if the documentation can live together with the version controlled source code it is the best.
Are you using any sort of auto-documentation or is it completely manual? Assuming that you are using an auto-documentation system, the documentation is more or less generated on the fly, and would be part of the code itself.
To me, (assuming that it's possible with whatever code you are using), this would be the preferred method of handling it, as you wouldn't need to maintain the documentation source at all.