The situation is, I once placed some conceptually related codes into one package in hope of interweaving them gradually later, but it turns out they eventually become independent of each other (can be safely separated). Therefore, I decide it's time to split them into different packages, but I'm not sure how to do it in a way so that I could also keep the respective version control history for each sub-package. Any ideas?
The Convert extension included with the standard distribution is used for this purpose. Specifically, check out the --filemap option, which can include, exclude and rename files and directories when converting from one database to another.
Related
On my project I have some files that are generated automatically, so you'd normally don't put those in Source Control.
But since this process takes a long time and they change quite periodically, I'd rather keep them in Clear Case database to not impose this process to every one that desires to compile the source that isn't directly related to these files.
So, is there a way that I could add files on ClearCase UCM without creating a version tree?
More directly, I'd like to know if there a way to only one version per branch. As if when delivering this file to the main branch, it would delete the old version an replace it by the new one.
I know that this is a bit unorthodox, but I ask this because I'm not interested by the generated files history and I'd like to save space in the server.
So, is there a way that I could add files on ClearCase UCM without creating a version tree?
No.
Unless those files are radically different from one generation to the next, (or are huge binary), ClearCase would only record the delta, which wouldn't consume too much space.
One trick would be to rename the stream in which the import of the newly generated source is done, and create a new stream, in order to not have a huge version tree over time.
I have a project in which I've set up a bitbucket repo using mercurial.
We're actually 3 to work on it, so we're using branches.
When we did merges, we did them quite randomly so many times it failed.
Actually, I'm using Meld, and I don't really know in "which" part of the repo I have to choose which part of the source code I want to merge.
So, when I do merge, where should I do it ?
I'm not really sure if I have to do it on local, base or other, even though I know local corresponds to my last modifications, other corresponds to the last modifications of the branch I want to merge, and well, actually I'm not really sure about what is other ...
On careful review, I have found it out. You want to merge into local
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I am pretty sure after doing some tests
Local
The correct place to merge change to. The local files that will result from the merge. This will likely contain a mix of some auto-merged lines already.
Base
Where you are merging into.
Other
The merges you're pulling
This may not be the "right" answer, but when in doubt, I make them ALL match by making them look ALL merged 'correctly' (sometimes I have to discuss with my coworkers what the 'correct' look is based on their changes).
By doing this, I ensure the merge will be successful because meld cannot and will not actually change upstream data in mercurial. So there's no downside. For the life of me I also cannot tell which pane to merge into (mostly because the term 'base vs local' is ambiguous). So this is kind of an odd way to do it, but it works
I have two LLGLGEN 2.6 pro source files that I have to merge in my git repo (2 different branches). Due to the "professionnal" work of previous programmers on this project, the two projects have changes (the fork is 1 year old) that are not tracked in documents.
What can be the less painfull solution to finalize my merge ?
Thanks.
In my experience, it's easier to simply ignore the merge conflicts in the LLBL generated code and just re-sync the project to the database and then regenerate the code completely post-merge.
Where this becomes a problem is when there are a lot (or even a few) customizations made to the LLBL project file (e.g renaming fields, creating typed lists). There isn't much you can do about these outside of tracking them down one by one. The good news is the compiler will complain of something is missing or renamed.
I am wondering about 'deliverbl', how important are they for historical purposes or during development? All I know is they are created during delivery and includes activies.
If i am exporting major baselines from Clearcase to different SCM, should I consider 'deliverbl' as major baseline?
There are representing merges (from a child stream to another stream), so:
they should be considered, as they show the code "merged" (with potential conflicts resolved)
but you might have more trouble to export the merge hyperlink which shows the source of the merge
I like to export those baselines because their naming convention shows the stream destination name, as well as the date of the deliver, so you are left with clues about a merge between two branches.
However, their are unlabelled, so you might:
either need to convert those to a full baseline (cleartool chbl -full)
or decide to not bother with them and leave those out of your export.
during synchronisation with the CVS server, eclipse compares the content of the files (of course it uses internally CVS commands). But files without any content change are also shown as different, if they have another timestamp, because they are "touched". You always have to look manually per file comparison dialog if there was really a change in it or not.
Due to auto-generation I have some files that always get new timestamps and therefore I always have to check manually if they really contain any change.
At the eclipse docu I read :
Update and Commit Operations
There are several flavours of update and commit operations available
in the Synchronize view. You can perform the standard update and
commit operation on all visible applicable changes or a selected
subset. You can also choose to override and update, thus ignoring any
local changes, or override and commit, thus making the remote resource
match the contents of the local resource. You can also choose to clean
the timestamps for files that have been modified locally (perhaps by
an external build tool) but whose contents match that of the server.
That's exactly what I want to do. But I don't know how!? There is no further description/manual ...
Did anybody use this functionality and can help me (maybe even post a screenshot)?
Thanks in advance,
Mayoares
When you perform a CVS Update on a project (using context menu Team->Update), Eclipse implicitly updates the timestamp of local files whose contents match that of the server.