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.
I've got a (dirty) production installation of Simple Machines Forum (SMF 1.1.13). It was a clean install, once... about five years, twenty updates, and 40 mods ago. Not to mention the custom code that was patched directly into the code base. This started as a for-fun side project, and didn't have any code management practices at the get-go.
Now SMF 2 is (getting closer to) going live, and I want to upgrade. But without leaving the custom features behind.
Keep reading, this is a general software management question, not an SMF support question...
I'm trying to figure out the best way to port the custom features into the new code branch.
In some cases, the custom 1.1.x functionality will already exist in 2.0. Yay, no work for me!
In some cases, there will be mod packages versioned for 2.0, and I can just install them directly on a clean SMF 2 build. Yay, minimal work for me!
In some cases, the code port will be fairly straightforward between the two versions (e.g. a few small changes in queries or global variable construction). (I've ported a few features/mods back from 2.0 to 1.1.x, so I'm starting to get familiar with it.)
In some cases, I'm just going to have to redevelop the features mostly from scratch.
Those last two options are gonna be hard to manage.
Any suggestions on how to port a large number of changes from one branch to another?
When it's not my own in-house code, that is. Here's my initial plan:
Diff between a clean version of 1.1.x and my "dirty" production code
Map each line diff to a feature ("That code update is the custom tagging feature, gonna have to port it line by line, and that one over there is the gallery, I can probably install an updated mod.") This would be SOMUCHEASIER if there were a diff tool that generated a consolidated report, instead of having to go through scores of files one at a time. Google and SO searches didn't find a tool like that-- Is there one?
Install a clean 2.0 branch
Install the available updated mods
Roll up my sleeves and go through my diffs feature by feature (this? is why I need the consolidated diff report. It would be hell to do page by page.) and build them back in.
Any better ideas? (Pointers to release management info are welcome, though of course with the caveat that it's not actually my code so I have limited control.)
Otherwise? I fear my options are ditch the custom features (not really feasible) or stay on the old branch. Both suck. Help!
tl;dr: Point me to a diff tool that will do consolidated file-by-file diff reports for entire directories. And/or help me figure out an easier way to migrate my custom code.
Your plan is generally the most practical approach, although I would say that you're heading in the wrong direction by looking for code-level differences. With no version control over the project lifetime and with no concise record of applied changes, in examining differences at the code level you are looking for a level of detail that may not give you the information you need to apply the same changes to a new implementation.
Move away from thinking of code-level changes and consider application-level feature and behavioural changes. What features have your changes introduced? In what ways does your application now behave differently due to your changes?
You say that there have been many unversioned changes over a long period - you will fail to find all the changes no matter what tools you have at your disposal and you will still need to consider the feature and behavioural changes that exist to fully represent the same features and behaviours in any upgraded implementation.
You know your application well, you use it and you do appreciate the feature changes that you have introduced even if you may not realise this.
Install a vanilla 2.0 release
Apply all appropriate mods
Apply relevant styling
Use the new system, note the differences in behaviour and develop from this a set of required features
Your feature set does not need to be complete - don't stall at the stage of trying to figure out all required changes, this will take too long.
Apply features gathered from most recent feedback (ideally through revertable mods)
Note the differences in behaviour at develop from this a set of required features
Repeat
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 looking for a subversion tool, and i have the following requirements:
Must integrate into VS 2008
Automatically submits new versions
Does not use the command line as primary interface
Doesn't clutter up explorer with bright icon overlays or context menus
is only going to be used by one user mostly if not completely, so doesn't need to have advanced diff tools or anything like that
Basically, i want a subversioning tool that will only bother me when creating a project or actually needing to get something from a previous version.
Does something like that exist, and if so, what is it?
Yes. VisualSVN (commercial)
Except for "automatically submits new versions" - that makes no sense.
The day computers know when your code is ready to be committed and free of bugs is the day the world needs a lot less programmers
You commit when you're done a task, which effectively gives you a rollback point. It's also important to add a meaningful commit message ("Fixed crash when clicking on Save button") - this way you can find things easily later. A lot of new users to version control skip this part, and unfortunately only learn the hard way 3 months later when they need to go back and undo a fix/feature.
AnkhSvn is a free alternative, I've personally only used 1.x, which was really quite terrible. It definitely looks more usable in 2.x.
One upside to VisualSVN is that it uses TortoiseSVN for a lot of its dialogs. This means when you're working with subversion just from explorer, you have basically the same interface and same UI. Quite handy, as it lets you do things like edit images or text files without having to fire up VisualStudio, or edit scripts/installers, or other parts of a product that are not necessarily in VisualStudio.
Yes, they are available.
The two I know of are VisualSVN and AnkhSVN. There are a bunch of comparisons available on SO
I use AnkhSVN myself. It is free, integrates nicely with Visual Studio, and doesn't cause any performance issues.
visual SVN is what you need.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I read all over the Internet (various sites and blogs) about version control. How great it is and how all developers NEED to use it because it is very useful.
Here is the question: do I really need this? I'm a front-end developer (usually just HTML/CSS/JavaScript) and I NEVER had a problem like "Wow, my files from yesterday!".
I've tried to use it, installed Subversion and TortoiseSVN, I understand the concept behind version control but... I can't use it (weird for me).
OK, so... Is that bad? I usually work alone (freelancer) and I had no client that asked me to use Subversion (but it never is too late for this, right?). So, should I start and struggle to learn to use Subversion (or something similar?) Or it's just a waste of time?
Related question: Good excuses NOT to use version control.
Here's a scenario that may illustrate the usefulness of source control even if you work alone.
Your client asks you to implement an ambitious modification to the website. It'll take you a couple of weeks, and involve edits to many pages. You get to work.
You're 50% done with this task when the client calls and tells you to drop what you're doing to make an urgent but more minor change to the site. You're not done with the larger task, so it's not ready to go live, and the client can't wait for the smaller change. But he also wants the minor change to be merged into your work for the larger change.
Maybe you are working on the large task in a separate folder containing a copy of the website. Now you have to figure out how to do the minor change in a way that can be deployed quickly. You work furiously and get it done. The client calls back with further refinement requests. You do this too and deploy it. All is well.
Now you have to merge it into the work in progress for the major change. What did you change for the urgent work? You were working too fast to keep notes. And you can't just diff the two directories easily now that both have changes relative to the baseline you started from.
The above scenario shows that source control can be a great tool, even if you work solo.
You can use branches to work on longer-term tasks and then merge the branch back into the main line when it's done.
You can compare whole sets of files to other branches or to past revisions to see what's different.
You can track work over time (which is great for reporting and invoicing by the way).
You can recover any revision of any file based on date or on a milestone that you defined.
For solo work, Subversion or Git is recommended. Anyone is free to prefer one or the other, but either is clearly better than not using any version control. Good books are "Pragmatic Version Control using Subversion, 2nd Edition" by Mike Mason or "Pragmatic Version Control Using Git" by Travis Swicegood.
There are lots of benefits, yes you need it.
What tools/techniques can benefit a solo developer?
Best Version control for lone developer
You don't need version control any more than a trapese artist needs a safety net. It's like backing up your hard drive—most of the time it seems redundant as nothing happens but it will be needed eventually. There's no maybes here. It will happen. And you can never predict when and the past is a poor indicator as to when it will happen. It may happen only once ever in the future but even if you know it'll happen once you won't know how bad it will be.
Yes!
Do it. It won't hurt you..
I usually switch from Laptop to PC and back and it's absolutely great to have your code somewhere in a central repository.
Sometimes it's great to go just revert to the latest revision because you screwed up something that would be too difficult to fix..
The biggest advantage that is missing is being able to re-produce the source code that generated an old build.
At build time, you tag the source control with 'Build 4.26'. The next day you start coding Build 4.27. Three months later, when a client says, "I'm using Build 4.26, and there's a bug in the Frickershaw feature. I can't upgrade to any other build because of some changes to file formats you made in build 4.27. Is there anything you can do for me? I'm willing to pay."
Then, you can checkout a branch of the 4.26 source code... fix the Frickershaw feature, and then re-build the package for the user in about an hour or two. Then you can switch back to version 4.39, and keep working.
In the same vein, you can track down the exact point at which a bug was added. Test versions 4.25 for the bug, then 4.20, then 4.10 and eventually find the bug was introduced in version 4.12. Then you look for all changes made between 'Build 4.11' and 'Build 4.12', and then focus on the Frickershaw feature. You can quickly find the source code for the bug without ever debugging it.
Branching doesn't seem useful to you? Have you never wanted to just try something out to see if it would work? I do a lot of plain old html/css stuff too, and I find that invaluable. There is literally no danger in branching to test something, seeing if it works, and deciding "meh" and then just rolling back.
I've never needed to get to a backup (knock on wood), but I find just the rolling back functionality invaluable.
A few perks as a freelancer:
Know definitively what you changed in every single file and when (as long as you check in often)
Rollback to any version in your past. Surprising how often this is valuable.
Track a set of changes as a 'release'. This way you know what each client is currently using and what's in development.
Backup
The ability to easily share a project if you suddenly aren't solo
Try a DVCS like Git or Bazaar. They are incredibly easy to set up, easy to use, and offer all the important features of Subversion, CVS, etc.
The key is that you can revert back to a working version when you break something, which is often much faster than undoing the change manually.
I wouldn't hire a contractor without them integrating into our processes. They would have to access code via our SVN, and would be unlikely to get paid without meeting unit testing and code review requirements.
If contracting I'd make sure to have solid experience of both VSS (check-in/out) and CVS (merge & conflict) models.
Working on your own you have a great opportunity to play and learn with the latest - I'd be trying out Git.
As a lone developer you can think of source control as an unlimited undo - one that works across sessions and reboots.
A minor advantage of source control for me is that I work on multiple development computers. It is easy to move my work around between machines.
The greatest advantage in my opinion has already been listed. It allows me to sleep at night knowing that if we have to roll-back a change it will be fairly easy.
I think the main advantage in moving from a "keep-all-versions file system" to a source code control system lies in the fact that the sccs adds structure to all those versions you kept of all those files, and provides you with records of "what was the consistent state of the whole file system at point X".
In other words, "Which version of file A goes with which versions of B, C, D, ...".
And an afterthought (¡!): the special act of committing or checking in makes you think about "what is this?", and the resulting log message can, hopefully, serve as memory...
The literal answer to this question is, No, you do not NEED version control.
You do, however, WANT version control, even if you don't know it.
That said, many SCM tools can be mysterious or downright unpleasant to use until you break through the Grok Barrier, so let's revise that a bit:
"You do, however, want EASY-TO-USE version control." And it's out there...download a bunch of recommended visual clients and give them a whirl, then try whichever maps best to the way you think.
Which leads to the question you meant to ask:
Why do I want to use version control?"
Answer: Version control allows you to be FEARLESS!
Yes you need it.
At the very least, for a single developer shop, you need to move code into a ProjectName-Date-Time directory several times a day.
That is, write a script that will automatically back up your working directory at lunch and at quitting time, without overwriting other back ups.
This can grow pretty fast, so eventually you'll want to save only the differences between files, which is what a VC application does.
Since you usually work alone, I would say that it is a good idea to use version control. One of the main benefits I have found in using version control (Subversion in my case), is that when working alone it gives me more confidence in trying a new approach to the problem. You can always branch to a new method or framework of solving the problem and see if you like it better. If it turns out that this branch doesn't work, you can just abandon it and go back to the old method. This also makes it easier to try out the different solutions side by side.
So, if you have ever seen a different approach to solving a problem and you wanted to try it out, I would definitely use version control as a tool to make this easier.
If you are working on your own, and are performing backups on a regular basis, VC may not be needed (unless you count your backups as version history). As soon as you start working with another developer, you should get version control in place so that you don't start over-writing each other's work.
Even if you don't need it right now, it is something you will need whenever you work in a team.
Having a history of changes to your html/css/javascript can be a godsend. Being able to compare your front-end to the code a month, or several months ago can really go a long way in figuring out why suddenly the template is all askew.
Plus if you ever want/need to get help on your project(s), you'll have an easy system to distribute, track, and deploy updated content.
Definitely do it, you'll thank yourself once you get used to it.
Checkout (one time)
Update (beginning of day)
Commit (end of task/change after testing)
That's all there is to it. Don't commit EVERY single modification that you're refreshing in the browser, just the one's you want to go live.
Think if it like a backup. It is a little irritating until the day you need it. Then the amount of work you lose is directly proportional to the frequency of your backups.
Another benifit is being able to look at old ways you did things that may have become obsolete in a certain spot but could be usefull in another. Just cut and paste the old code that you got when doing a compare.
That is unless you like reinventing the wheel you already reinvented...
When things can go wrong they will.
It is very nice to have the ability to reference code you may have deleted a month ago, or to recover the entire project after a hardware failure or upgrade.
There may also be a point in the future when the project is worked on by more than you. The ability to prevent (or control) branching and versioning is a must in an environment like that.
Must must must must must must. You must use version control.
This is of the deepest importance.
If you don't understand why now, you will one day.
When your client phones up in a panic because something is broken on the live site and it's a regression, you'll be glad you can just open TortoiseSVN and see what it was you did last Tuesday that caused the breakage.
It's really odd. Ever since I started using version control, I've very occasionally had the need to look up old copies of my code and use them. I never needed to do this before...probably because the idea of doing didn't really stick. It's easy not to notice those times when you could have found version control helpful.
Search within an entire codebase. It's a killer feature, mainly because the search gets actioned on another machine so you can get on with your work undisturbed.
Which incidentally, is the reason why we didn't change to SourceGear Vault. It can't do this. We're still looking for a SourceSafe-compatible replacement for... well, SourceSafe. Despite what everyone says, it hasn't let us down yet*
* this may just be a matter of time.
I think you've made the right decision to use some kind of version control. For simplicity, I'd go with SVN (ignore CVS as SVN is basically a "better" CVS)
SVN can work with "local" repositories right on the filesystem and on lots of platform so you don't have to bite off too much in infrastructure (servers, networks, etc)
Great resource for SVN: http://svnbook.red-bean.com
I don't know much about GIT, but it being open source and gain lots of mindshare probably has alot of similar advantages!
Borrowing a quote from somewhere: You might not need it now, but when you do, you'll be glad you did.
Happy versioning!
Although old and crude, we have found Microsoft Visual SourceSafe to work. It works great for keeping version history. If you are not to worried about branching, which being the solo developer you may not, it might just fit the bill.
As far as checking in, finding a good checkpoint can be a challenge, but checking in on every save will only make versioning hard to track.
"Do I really need version control?"
Yes. Unless you write perfect code that never needs to get changed.
An example:
I had a requirement. I built up a webpage, spent a day or so on the page, it's Section 508 compatibility (this was about 6-7 years ago), and uploaded to the website. Next the requirement was changed drastically. I spend another day working on the page (and Hayuge Excel files didn't convert into accessible HTML easily). About a week later, client switches asks that we go back to Version A. Source control would have done this in about 10 minutes. As it was, I had to blow another %$#^^&$# day on the task.
Yes, you need version control either for development purposes or simply for storing your documents. This way, you can go back in time if you're required to do so in order to revert changes or mistake made on a code or documents.
Once you start working on a team that references ever upgrading "components" from multiple callers/applications, version control will be an absolute must. In that environment, there is no way that you can keep up with all the permutations of possible change.
You need version control just like you need insurance in life.
You need version control to manage different file versions. With it, you can get and work on the files from different places and it facilitates team members to collaborate on the same project.