I am working inside a private repository, and collaborate with my friend, who are not very friendly with SCM and stuff. All he need is to monitor the latest release from my development, which is 1 single executable file.
I was wondering instead of cloning the whole repo each time he want to get the latest changes (sometimes my changeset can consists of several large binary files that only being used upon development, not testing). Can I bind the executable file into the Download section in BitBucket?. So that everytime I build my project, the executable file will appear in the Download section and he can download it right away.
For now all I can see from Bitbucket's download section is just the manual upload and Tag/Snapshot download, which I presume will pack a certain changesets into a compressed file. Is there any chance I can do this?.
Thanks.
If your executable file is checked into the repository, you can link to it at a specific revision:
https://staging.bitbucket.org/<username>/<repo>/raw/<revision>/file.exe
For example, this link will always give you the latest stable hg(1) man page from the Mercurial repository:
https://bitbucket.org/mirror/mercurial/raw/stable/doc/hg.1.txt
This would give you latest README on the default branch from the Django repository:
https://bitbucket.org/django/django/raw/default/README
If your executable isn't checked into the repository (some prefer not to check in build artifacts), you'll need to manually upload them in the downloads section of your repository. There isn't a REST API for creating project downloads at the moment.
Would giving your friend an archive of the tip work? Try this URL:
https://bitbucket.org/<username>/<project>/get/tip.tar.gz
#Idan's suggestion might already work for you, but if the archive is too big, you could set up an extra repository for binaries which automatically gets updated, committed and pushed by your build process. Then your fellow developer could download a comparatively small tip archive as suggested by Idan.
In addition to Idan's answer:
To fetch the latest version from the 'default' branch:
https://bitbucket.org/<username>/<project>/get/default.tar.gz
You can replace 'default' by any other branch name, tag name or changeset (if you know it).
Related
I am an admin for the PIO project (https://github.com/NCAR/ParallelIO), a set of C/Fortran libraries which is built with autoconf/automake/libtool.
When I do a release, GitHub generates a tarball and a zip file of the repo. These are useless because they have not been generated by "make dist" which puts together the actual tarball.
I can add the actual tarball to the release page - is there any way to remove the broken ones that GitHub puts there? As it is, I just tell users not to use those, but that's not a great solution.
Another solution, used on some projects, is to commit the autotools-generated files to the release branch, so that GitHub releases are functional. That seems lame but might be the best option.
I am running project pages on github and add specific links for "fast access" to binaries for those who do not want to get complete sources. All works fine but there is no version information and noone can see if there is something new. So I want to add a line where actual version is displayed. Version number can be read from version.txt which is located in master branch. gh-pages do not support php so I cannot include this simple number easy. I do not want to use javascript because of not all browsers support this. Is there a simple way to display the version number which is in version.txt of master branch without editing each time gh-pages? Does gh-pages support any serverside includes?
Thanks for any idea
Andreas
I have got a workaround: I included image from my own server, and image there is created via php from text file located on GitHub...
Andreas
I have details of few public repositories on GitHub. Is there a way to write a script which downloads the source code of all those repositories on to my local machine? While downloading the source code I want all the previous versions of project to be downloaded.
Ex: Project RxJava has about 124 releases as shown here. I want to know if there is a way to write a program which downloads source code of all these 124 releases on to my machine. I don't want to click on download source code button on each of these releases.
The easiest is to:
clone the repo (that will give you the sources matching each tags)
do a git tag and for each tag, curl the release.
Actually, since the release is the source code, you don't have to curl anything.
To access the source code of a "release", simply checkout the tag matching the release.
cd /path/to/cloned/repo
git checkout 1.0.8
This is how I figured the solution:
Using the Repository Search API get the details of required the projects.
This gives you a JSON object which has the below property
"releases_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/ReactiveX/RxJava/releases",
Use the above url to get a JSON object which describes release details of project
The JSON obtained in step 3 has a property as given below for each version of project
"zipball_url": "https://api.github.com/repos/ReactiveX/RxJava/zipball/v1.0.8",
Now copy the content from above URL in to an output stream to fetch the required source code.
Sample source code is available here
I know I am seven years late, yet I think this solution might help people with the same prolem:
I developed a simple bash script that you can find in this GitHub Gist that allows you to download all versions from every file currently in the repository. The output data is located in subfolders matching the name of the file, containing all its versions. The original directory tree of the repository is kept.
Hope anyone finds this useful!
We recently moved from subversion to git, and then to Github, for several open source projects. Github was nice in that it provided a lot of functionality. One of the things I particularly like is the ability to download tags as zip or .tar.gz files.
Unfortunately Github recently discontinued downloads. That shouldn't be a problem because of the ability to download tags. However in the past we have not put a Makefile , configure script or any other autoconf-generated files into the repo because they get lots of conflicts when people merge.
What's the proper way to handle this?
Should I put autoconf and automake-generated files in the repo so people can download tags directly?
Or should there be a bootstrap.sh file and people are told to run that?
Or should I just do a make dist and put that into the repo?
Thanks
Publish the output of make dist via GitHub Releases
Your first option—putting the Autoconf- and Automake-generated files into the repository—is not a good idea. It's almost never beneficial to store generated files in source control. In this case, it's going to pollute your history with a lot of unnecessary and potentially conflicting commits, particularly if not all your contributors are using the same version of Autotools. Your third option—checking in the output of make dist—is a bad idea for exactly the same reasons as the first option.
Your second option—adding a "bootstrap" script that calls Autoconf and Automake to generate the configure scripts—is also a bad idea. This defeats the entire purpose of Autotools, which is to make your source portable across systems—including those for which Autotools is not available! (Consider what would happen if someone wanted to build and install your software on a machine on which they don't have root access, and where the GNU Build System is not installed. A bootstrap script is not going to help them because they'd first need to make a local installation of Autotools and possibly all its dependencies.)
The proper way of releasing code that uses Autotools is to produce a tarball with make dist (or better yet, make distcheck, since this will also run tests and do other sanity checks), and then publish this tarball somewhere other than the source repository.
Your original question, from April 2013, states that GitHub discontinued download pages. However, in July 2013, GitHub added a "Releases" feature that not only pre-packages your source tags, but also allows you to attach arbitrary files to each release. So on GitHub, the Releases page is where you should publish your make dist tarballs (and preferably also the detached GnuPG signatures of them).
Basic steps
When you are ready to make a release, tag it and push the tag to GitHub:
$ git tag 1.0 # Also use -s if desired
$ git push --tags
Use your Makefile to produce a tarball:
$ make dist # Alternatively, 'make distcheck'
Visit the GitHub page for your project and follow the "releases" link:
You will be taken to the Releases page for your project. The first time you visit, all you will see is a list of tags and automatically produced tarballs from the source tree:
Press the "Draft a new release" button.
You will then be presented with a form in which you should fill in the Git tag associated with the release and an optional title and description. Below this there is also a file selector labelled "Attach binaries by dropping them here or selecting them". Use this to upload the tarball you created in Step 2 (and maybe also a detached GnuPG signature of it).
When you're done, press the "Publish release" button.
Your project's Releases page will now display the release, including prominent download links for the attached files:
If you don't want to use GitHub Releases, then as pointed out in a previous answer, you should upload the tarballs somewhere else, such as your own website or FTP site. Add a link to this repository from your project's README.md so that users can find it.
The second is better: you want any user of your repo to be up and running as fast as possible, re-generating what he/she needs in order to build your program.
Since Git is very much a version control for text (as opposed to an artifact repo like Nexus), providing a way to generate the final binary is the way to go.
When you cut a release, upload the result of make distcheck to your project's download page: it's a makefile target that builds the tarball and verifies that it installs, uninstalls, passes tests and other sanity checks. Github being wrong-headed isn't an excuse: create a tree like this in your repo:
/
/source
/source/configure.ac
/source/Makefile.am
/source/...
/releases
/releases/foo-0.1.tar.gz
/releases/...
For developers, you should not have generated files in source control. Many modern autotooled projects bootstrap fine off an invocation of autoreconf -i.
I want allow users to download executable of one of my project on github, without downloading all sources or browsing the entire project.
According to this similar question, you could use a upload/download service, which apparently, github has shut down.
So is there another way? Is github aiming at sharing code only, not software?
Update 2d July 2013, you now can define a release.
Releases are accompanied by release notes and links to download the software or source code.
Following the conventions of many Git projects, releases are tied to Git tags. You can use an existing tag, or let releases create the tag when it's published.
You can also attach binary assets (such as compiled executables, minified scripts, documentation) to a release. Once published, the release details and assets are available to anyone that can view the repository.
This is what replaces the old binary upload service, which was removed in December 2012!
Ideally, you would store your executable in an artifact repository, as opposed as a source repository like GitHub.
So yes, GitHub is for source control management, not deliveries (like binaries produced from your code).
Nexus is the usual choice for any generated artifacts like binaries, with a free upload possibility for open-source projects.
See "How do I get my software into Central?" (from this answer, also mentioned in "Maven repository hosting for non-public artifacts?")
You can create another repository to host all your builds , I mean executable files . With in that repository don't add any of your code other than your builds ,
As a result of this , people can click on download Zip button at git hub , which downloads only executable ( as a zip file ).
while building you can copy the executable file in a folder just push to remote repository which is hosting only builds .
Hope this helps .
basically , GIT is just an SCM ( source code management system ) it is not meant for this purpose .
but still this how you can utilize the service of github.org amd git .
hope this helps .
EDIT : -
Git hub now has a solution for hosting releases it has been well explained by #VonC in the post below . Please use that as a solution.
The following worked for me, YMMV. On a MAC and using Chrome browser, after getting to this page I clicked on the "Raw" button (the "View Raw" link also worked), and it downloaded the executable tatuMicro.kit to my Downloads folder
An exe file can be hosted under releases and the link can be distributed among friends etc. I tested it as recently as yesterday. Only issue is if someone sabotages the program for profit. The exe files can be moved around and distributed easily on pendrives.