We use bzr as the version control system at work and we've come to realize that in a certain project, it would be quite handy if each of the revision controlled files had the revision number as a comment on the first line of each file.
In a nutshell I want to add # BZR REV: xxx to each python file during commit.
A quick bash script would achieve this but as I understand this should be standard practice in other version control systems like SVN, so I'm hoping for a builtin way to achieve what I need. Also it would save me the trouble of writing that bash script :)
See the bazaar keywords plugin.
Related
I've just discovered, a surprising for me behavior of cvs.
I change file1 localy
During this time people change other unrelated parts of the same file, and commit to the repository
I update my local copy from repository
At this point I expect my local copy of file1 to contain all changes made by others to this file, unless the update above reported a conflict. However, when I do now diff with head, I discover lot's of differences coming from changes made by others in parts of the file that I did not touch at all.
Any ideas? Is this just the limited abilities of cvs to merge? Any wrong setting? Something in my workflow?
CVS has very limited merge facilities. Switch to a modern system such as Git (perhaps via git-cvsimport if the repo maintainer is uncooperative) if you want a better merge experience. See also Best practices for using git with CVS
The final solution is :
1. Save your local code to another place manually
2. Revert the files which may has conflict to the HEAD (most latest) version on CVS server.
3. Add back your change to the Reverted file.
The concept for above solution is to CLEAR UP all the possible issue by REVERT and get a 100% clean version from repository then add back our changes.
It can resolve below issues which caused by code out of date / code base messed up.
CVS commit had a conflict and has not been modified
CVS update failed
CVS not sync
I have some general scripts that I use and they keep getting modified over time. Right now, I do not use any version control software for them so basically the old files are lost unless I explicitly save them.
I need a good minimal version control system that I can use on a single machine. Which one do you use for such projects?
Git or mercurial both work great. No server required.
I've used subversion for this in the past. Mostly this is because I'm in windows, and TortoiseSVN is a dead simple UI for my repo.
For a scenario like yours, which is relatively simple, I'd recommend using either what you're familiar with, or what is easy to use on your platform.
Git is actually really easy to use in such a setting, and it scales just as well to really small repositories with a few commits a month as it does to huge ones with a hundred a day. Here's how you would set up such a repository:
$ cd ~/your-scripts
$ git init
$ git add .
$ git commit -m 'Start script repository'
Ta-da!
As a hosting solution we make use of http://codesion.com/free_cvs_svn, you will note they also support Git hosting. They also host a bunch of other services that go hand in-in-hand with versioning.
Check out some of the personal version control systems. Hers is a short list:
FileHamster
History Explorer
FolderTrack
Oops! Backup
They are super easy to use and "automatically checkin" when ever you modify your files.
Note: I am the author of FolderTrack and recomend it for software because it can treat a bunch of files as 1 big project. Therefore if you need to revert your project to where it was yesterday, it will revert the 8, 10, or how ever many other files you modified since that time.
Free code: BOS
I am using Eclipse and Subversion for Java development, and I find myself wishing for a feature in version control systems (one that is not available in SVN, to the best of my knowledge).
I would like my project settings files to be half-ignored. To be more precise, I want them to be available in VCS, I want merge to occur when someone checks in changes, but. I want my own changes ignored unless I very explicitly tell the system to take them.
This would allow me to have my local paths (and other settings) in my local configuration w/o screwing up other people's configuration. But, when I have a substantial change, I can still check it in (very very carefully, may be temporarily removing my other local changes) and have it delivered to other people.
Now, the actual question: is there any VCS that supports this feature? Or may be I am missing something in SVN? How do other people solve this problem in Eclipse?
Yes, Git support that feature through filter driver (a clean script can run upon commit, allowing you to clean the content from any of your changes if you want).
But another way would be to never version that setting file, and only version:
a template file
a value file
a script able to replace variables in the template files with the values from the value file, in order to generate the actual (and "private", as in "not versioned") setting file.
That way, you can modifying it at your heart's content without ever committing your changes.
.gitignore for git, .hgignore for mercurial and file paths and patterns can be added that will not be committed. There similar in SVN but i never worked out how to use it myself but my sysop did set it up form me.
git supports this with
git update-index --assume-unchanged <file>
and the complementary
git update-index --no-assume-unchanged <file>
See http://blog.pagebakers.nl/2009/01/29/git-ignoring-changes-in-tracked-files and http://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-update-index.html#_options for more details.
We use CVS currently and develop new features on a branch before merging to trunk. Occasionally we get merge conflicts caused by the CVS keyword substitution. So when reviewing the conflict file we see something like this
<<<<<<< collect_logs.conf
# CVS $Id: collect_logs.conf,v 1.6 2010/02/03 16:43:11 peterw Exp $
=======
# CVS $Id: collect_logs.conf,v 1.13 2010-05-07 17:14:43 peterw Exp $
>>>>>>> 1.13
And that will be the only conflict in the file.
I have done a little bit of investigating and as you probably notice there is a slight difference in the formatting of the date in the entry. This is due to different cvs version being used over different platforms (one on Solaris, the other on Linux) I believe that is what's triggering the conflict.
The workaround is to simply do a fresh checkout of the project and then to do the cvs update from there. As all the keywords are generated in the same format it is happy to merge.
My Question is can you command cvs to cope better with merging on the keyword substitutions. Or is it simply better to avoid it with fresh checkouts like I have?
Thanks
Peter
You would use update -kk ... as per the CVS documentation on Merging and keywords(section 5.10).
The k attached to the -k (keyword substitution mode) causes CVS to just output the keyword and not the value of the keyword. So in theory your multiple date formats shouldn't be a problem. I haven't tested this theory though.
how does version control usually work? does it save diff files as a trail with hashes to validate the trail?
Check out Eric Sinks blog series on version control.
Also, Joel Spolsky wrote Hg Init: a Mercurial tutorial, that finally made me "get" what distributed source control is all about.
There are more than one ways to skin a cat...
Different VCS use different approaches. CVS, for example, will create a file on the server for each file which you commit. This is essentially a file in RCS format; CVS is only a wrapper around RCS which runs the RCS commands over many files in a directory subtree (RCS can only work on single files).
The RCS file contains a list of changes (version number, checkin message and how much was changed). After that comes a copy of the current HEAD version. The rest of the files are the diffs between the versions (long explanation).
This way, CVS can quickly return the HEAD version (which is most often requested) and it can compute the other versions.
CVS doesn't do any validation; if one of your files becomes corrupt, you need a backup. Since CVS is based on RCS, it can't version directories nor can it track renames. CVS and RCS use the standard diff(1) command to create the diffs.
Subversion (SVN) works similarily but adds versioning of directories and renames. Moreover, SVN uses a better diff algorithm (xdelta) which gives a smaller repository.
For an explanation how Git works, see here.
Darcs is very different and IMHO more intuitive than other SCMs even distributed ones.
There's an excellent guide for beginners about how it works: Understanding Darcs.