I am using mercurial for website development. I "think" I'm using it correctly.
I develop on my development machine, commit fairly regularly. I will somewhat regularly push my commits to my hosted site-dev repository.
If things are set up how I want them for the live site, I push from my dev machine to the hosted site-live repository. Then I pull down from that repository onto the live server.
However, there are some changes that need to be made (changing directories from localhost to www.example.com, changing the DB connection stuff, etc.).
What I did was made these changes on my live machine, then pushed them back up to the site-live repository. I don't know why I did that, really, but at least there's a changeset sitting there with the necessary config changes.
What I don't know how to do is manage this process. I'm a little lost beyond committing, pushing and pulling with hg. I'm a single developer and haven't even done a merge yet.
Is there some way to keep that particular changeset identified, and just apply it, hopefully even BEFORE I pull from the repo down to the live server?
I think you can tell from my question that I'm in a little over my head with hg and workflow at the moment ;)
This is my understanding:
What essentially you are trying to do is have a development, staging and deployment environment. You do your development using 'development' repository, test it on a staging environment and then once satisfied, pull those changes into deployment repository.
And when you pull from staging to deployment, you need to change your environment / configuration data.
My take is you should not be changing the configuration at all.
You should have configuration files such that you have a
basic configuration file
basic.conf
Environment specific overrides
basic.dev.conf, basic.staging.conf and basic. deployment.conf
Use environment variable:
The overrides to the basic configuration data should be defined via an environment
specific variable : APP_ENV : dev or staging or deploy
This way you should be able to override the configuration based on the environment without changing the configuration information.
It is not a good idea to rely on making changes to config files each time you pull your code from development to staging to deployment.
I would keep the live server outside the version control. Meaning that I would have a small "install" script that pulls updates from the repository, removes any unnecessary development files, and applies the correct configuration files. Both development and production configuration files should be in version control.
Related
I have been researching and am trying to figure out the best branching and deployment strategy to accomplish the requirements below. Maybe I’m missing something but it is more complicated than it seems. Ideally, we’d just have one permanent branch, ‘master’, that could have specific commits tagged to mark releases to production.
Our current strategy is based on Git Flow and has permanent branches ‘master’ (only has releases to production) and ‘develop’. The primary thing that complicates using a multiple permanent-branches model is the concept of “promoting” the same build from the staging environment to production. Currently, this needs to be done in a separate source code branch (deployments to staging come from ‘develop’, deployments to prod come from ‘master’).
Tools: Git (VSTS), TeamCity, Octopus Deploy
Requirements (feature and hotfix lifecycles):
All code is reviewed via pull requests (enforced via branch policies)
All code gets deployed to a staging environment for testing
We can quickly go back to any snapshot of code that was deployed previously
If testing is successful, then the same build can be “promoted” from our staging environment to production (no need to build again)
Features accumulate over time before pushing out to production as a single release. Hotfixes have to be able to go through without getting caught up in the "all or nothing" next regular release.
I like the idea of having one permanent branch with tags (re: The master/develop split is redundant, http://endoflineblog.com/gitflow-considered-harmful), but having additional permanent branches may better facilitate deploying to different lifecycles/versions (feature and hotfix) to Octopus.
I have been wrestling with how best to pull this off and I may be over complicating things. Any feedback is appreciated.
It seems you have a number of questions and they are quite broad... I'll add some comments to each of your requirements as a conversation starter, but this whole thread might get blocked by moderators as it is definitely not the style of questions SO was made for.
All code is reviewed via pull requests (enforced via branch policies)
I haven't looked at VSTS for ages, but I'd expect they already support branch policies and pull-requests, so not sure if there's anything you need here other than configure settings in your repositories.
In case VSTS does not support that, you might consider moving to a tool that does e.g. BitBucket, GitHub, etc. Both of these have an on-premises version in case you can't (or don't want to) use the cloud hosted version.
All code gets deployed to a staging environment for testing
You achieve that with setting up lifecycles in Octopus Deploy, to make sure deployments/promotions follow the the sequence you want.
We can quickly go back to any snapshot of code that was deployed previously
You already have source control, so all you need now is traceability from the code that is deployed in an environment, to the deployment version in Octopus Deploy, the build job in TeamCity, the branch and exact commit in your source control.
There's a few things that you can do, to achieve that:
Define a versioning scheme that works for you. I like to use semantic versioning. "Major" and "Minor" versions are defined by the developers, and the "Patch" is the auto-incremented number from TeamCity (%build.number%). Every git push build the code and generates a unique build version (%major%.%minor%.%build.number%)
As part of the build steps in TeamCity, before you compile the code, make sure your source files are patched with the version number assigned by each build, the commit hash from your source control, and the branch name. e.g. if you are using .NET, make sure all the AssemblyInfo.cs files are updated with that version, so that the version is embedded in the binaries. This allows anyone to query the version looking at the properties of the binary files, and also allows you to display the app version on the app itself (e.g. status bar, footer, caption, about box, etc.)
Have TeamCity tag your source control with the version number of every build, so you can quickly see on your source control history. You probably only want to do that for the master branch, though which is what you care about.
Have Octopus tag your source control with the deployment version number and the environment name, so that you can quickly see (from your source control) what got deployed where.
Steps 1 and 2 are the most important ones, really. 3 and 4 are just nice-to-have. Most of the time you'll just open the app in the environment, check the commit hash in the "About", and do a git checkout to that commit hash...
If testing is successful, then the same build can be "promoted" from our staging environment to production (no need to build again)
Again, Octopus Deploy lifecycles, and make sure anything different in each environment is defined in the configuration file of the application, which is updated during the Octopus deployment, using environment-specific variables.
In terms of branch workflow, this last requirement makes it mandatory to merge changes into master (or whatever your "production" branch is) before the deployment lifecycle can begin.
I'm learning FluentMigrator. The thing that I like about FM is that it supports the idea of Forward and Back for migrations (aka Up/Down). I'm finding that it's not ideal about this; there are some holes. Still, it's good.
This leads me to wonder if there are any deployment tools (nant, msbuild or other) that support this idea of rolling forward and back. The scenario that I'm using it in is the deployment of a web app with a related database.
Ideally I'd like to set up my deployment so that, should any part of it fail, it will revert to the previous known working configuration. With FM, this is pretty easy to do (but there are rough spots), so that covers the db. How about the files that make up the web app? Do any deploy tools have support for this?
Deploying to a Windows Server. Assume that I can't make any changes to the server.
I don't know of any Microsoft-centric, automated provisioning/deployment tools like Capistrano. Here are some tools I've heard of, but never used:
MSDeploy, for deploying web application.
Microsoft Deployment Services, for managing operating system configuration
Microsoft's System Center Configuration Manager
BladeLogic
HP's Operations Center
Up until about three months ago, we did our deployment/provisioning using custom MSBuild scripts. After a server is provisioned, deploys happen automatically using Robocopy to copy files to a share on the application server, updating changed application binaries and markup files. We've never had a need to rollback any of our deployments, but since our scripts are custom, we could write the logic if we needed to.
MSBuild is a terrible deployment/provisioning language. For the past three months, we've been writing all new scripts in, and porting existing ones to, PowerShell. It is wonderful. With version 2, there is support for running commands on remote servers, like SSH. We haven't used that functionality yet, but I'm looking forward to pushing setup scripts to remote server to provision and deploy at the same time.
We have been using Git to do our deploys for the last 6 months.
Here is the whole process:
CI server build the project
CI server checks it in to a local git repository
CI server pushes the changes to the centralised git repository
User creates an empty repository on the live server
User adds the central git repository to the remotes
User pulls the latest version over https (no need to open any ports)
It is a lot to setup in the beginning but once setup it works great. Deploys take seconds as only changed files get copied.
Another great thing about this method is that git keeps history of changes so rolling back is pretty simple. You can also roll back a few revisions and it's done straight on the live server. If something goes wrong reverting is super fast.
Also you can save some time if you use a hosted git service (github) for your central repository.
This is a very brief description but I can give you more info if you want.
Of course! My favorite is Capistrano. This was originally built for Ruby but I've found that it works just as well for other languages.
https://github.com/capistrano/capistrano
I develop on my local machine with VS2010 and SQL Server. Naturally, my web.config points to my local SQL Server and I can debug/development and all is well. Unfortunately, I am not entirely sure on how to go about deploying my code to a live server.
Currently, my live server consists of a virtual machine (my site is accessible from the internet). When I'm ready to put my changes on the live server I publish my app (right click on solution explorer -> publish). Then I go to the directory it publishes to and dump all the files into a network share that goes to my site on the live server. On the initial copy over, I have to manually edit the web.config so that the connection string points to the SQL Server on the live server instead of my local machine. So this is my first stumbling block. How can I easily manage development settings and "live" settings in the web.config?
Now, I also use version control (Kiln). Can I possibly tag a changeset and have it automatically deployed to my live server somehow? Let's say someone submits a bug and I fix it. I push my changeset and now Kiln has the latest version of my code with the bug fix. What's the best way to get these changes on to a live server?
I'm unable to find any documentation that covers the entire workflow but I feel like there has go to be a better way. Surely, something like this can be accomplished without having to manually edit the web.config everytime I publish and pray to the computer Gods that I didn't miss something in the connection string.
It's just me so I have complete control over all of my environments, including the server and what's accessible via the internet, and anything is possible if only I knew what to do.
How can I easily manage development settings and "live" settings in the web.config?
Re: With VS 2010 web.config transformations, it is quite easy. Please take a look at this blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/webdevtools/archive/2009/05/04/web-deployment-web-config-transformation.aspx
For VS 2008 or older, we used to have multiple config file based on environment and we used to create Debug/Release/DevTest/UAT/PROD release configuration and then in the post build event we used to replace the web.config with the release configuration based config. For example - if you build the project using "Prod" release configuration then we copy the PROD web.config to the publishing folder.
Now, I also use version control (Kiln).
Can I possibly tag a changeset and have it automatically deployed to my live server somehow? Let's say someone submits a bug and I fix it. I push my changeset and now Kiln has the latest version of my code with the bug fix. What's the best way to get these changes on to a live server?
Re: Source control and publishing to live server are two different things. The first question you are asking here related to how you manage multiple releases and have control over bug fixes for each release. The way I would do it is I will have PROD branch in my source control which will be the first release and for every major release I will sub branch it to have more control over e-fixes.
For the other question about how to get it to live server, it depends on your environment. We do it differently based on how customer environment is setup. If they have given us the FTP, we use that or otherwise we package the application into an MSI and then deploy it to UAT.. Until UAT signoff is done, we keep on updating the MSI. Once signoff received, the MSI goes to PROD.
Hope this helps.
I've never worked with any version control systems before. Now I'm trying to learn Mercurial, but I'm confused (I've already read about 10-15 articles + hginit.com). I don't know how to organize the workflow.
I have a testing server and a production server. I work from my office computer and from my home laptop. I make changes directly on the testing server, and every week or so copy new code to my production server. I also need wiki/issues/etc. pretty much everything bitbucket.org has. I know that's a bad way of doing things.
Is there any tutorial or articles on how to organize the workflow? I'd also appreciate any schemes/sketches describing the process.
Thank you!
[Edit: Changed based on comments]
Using Bitbucket
Once you have created an account.
You should be able to create a repo with an appropriate url. Then you can clone it to create a local repository.
Check out getting started.
See the following to push the updates to BitBucket.
BitBucket comes with very extensive documentation.
Also there are, other useful tools to work with BitBucket:
BitbucketExtension that allows you to use command line for a number of operations.
Using Mercurial Queues and bitbucket.org
Organizing workflow
You will have to evolve a workflow that suits you. In your case, it looks like you have a testing server and production server.
So , you can setup two repositories, one for the testing server ad one for production. You can make push to testing server automatic so that you can test out the changes immediately. You can tag releases that are then pushed to production server.
Your local repo can be used to publish changes to testing server.
You can push the approved changes, tagged to BitBucket repository.
I am coding a website using the Codeigniter PHP framework.
I am using mercurial for version control.
I have 3 systems I work with. I do my coding on a Windows 7 machine using Netbeans 6.9.1. I am occasionally making commits, and pushing to a repository at Bitbucket.org, purely for the purposes of backup and version control.
I have a "beta" website (on a shared Linux box with it's own dedicated IP address) that I upload to using FTP, where I can test that everything is working as intended on an actual site running Linux.
Once I'm happy with that, I upload to my "live" site, which is on it's own dedicated server. Again I'm just using FTP to upload the files from my development server.
I realize that this is all kinds of wrong. For one thing I have to go in and change some things on the beta and live machines so that they're referring to the correct domain name, instead of localhost. For another, I'm not making use of mercurial at all to help with this. I assume instead of uploading from FTP, I could be using mercurial to "grab" a particular revision that I've marked as ready to deploy. I also think I could possibly be doing something in Netbeans differently to make the process easier.
What I want to do is have some very smoothe way to control all this, and hopefully one that knows how to deal with the issue of a slightly different configuration setup for the beta and live sites from the localhost.
Is there a standard way to do what I'm looking for? I've seen references to some third party apps for "continuous integration" but I'm not sure I need anything like that.
I'm a little lost as to what would be the SIMPLEST thing for me to do that would make my life easier....any help greatly appreciated :) Thanks!
It depends on how different the setup for each site is, and if there are secrets involved, which should not be visible on a public place (I assume you use a public bitbucket repository).
If the changes are not sensitive, then you can add two additional branches for your test and production servers, where only the configuration changes are applied. Every time you change something in default and deploy it to test, you would simply merge default on top of test, and mercurial fill in the different configuration settings in the process. Then the server deployment wold be a call to hg archive within the correct branch.
A typical change history would look like this:
O----o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o---o default
\ \ \
T1--------T2-----------T3 test
\ \
P1---------------------P2 production
where in T1 and P1 the parameters for test and production are filled in. You also can use this branch setup to mature the development of your site, where you hack in default, and only propagate stable changes into test and production.
If the changes are sensitive, you can create a non-versionized deploy script (or better a versionized deployment script and a not versionized configuration file), which patches the output of hg archive.
You should use deployment scripts anyway, which handles the packaging of the product and deploy an the target in an automated and standardized way. Within this script you can also embed information about the source revision into the final archive.
Note that this model works fine for an environment, where no changes are made on the server. If you do changes to the product on the server, you need to copy the files from the server back into your development environment(at the correct revision), to check what was changed on the server. When you want to make changes also on the server, you might want to install mercurial also there.