We are using TFS for our code: trunk + branches for coding activities. There are 6 devs in my team.
Problem: sometimes developers don't want to create a new branch (or use an old one) to fix/develop something. They just do it in trunk. OK, in some cases it's acceptable. But most of the time it creates a lot of troubles.
How can I enforce protection of trunk and force devs to create new or reuse old branches?
UPD: I don't want to give read-only access to the devs on trunk (they have to be able to create branches and merge them back by themselves). I want some compromise - can create branches/do merging but can't develop in the trunk.
Working on the trunk directly is almost always incorrect. Yes it can be the most efficient way sometimes, but breaking process is breaking process and that will bite you eventually.
I think this problem is best solved with education, but limiting trunk write access to senior devs might help too - if they aren't "infected" too :)
Wortyh bearing in mind though that any good source-repository (read: not VSS) will save you from terminal problems in this area, it's just a matter of effort and watchfulness. You never want to rely on rollbacks, just saying "don't panic".
You can set permissions at the folder level.
Creating a branch is a powerfull permission. You will probably have to have one person who creates the branches and then sets the permissions.
For information on setting permissions see: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms252587.aspx
I'll second what #annakata said. Additionally, I highly recommend that whomever is responsible for managing SCM in your organization to set up a check-in alert that lets you know when someone checks code into the trunk. That way, you can follow up (with the previously-mentioned cricket bat, if necessary) with the developer responsible.
Some other techniques to consider:
Only allow senior developers to check in. Developers shelve their changes, and the senior devs review then check-in. They can help be your gatekeeper.
Use the gated-check-in feature of TFS2010 to help you. Turn on gated check-ins for the trunk.
Education in a form that developers can understand. Make them know exactly why building off the trunk is a bad thing. SCM process education can go a long way to getting people to comply. If they think it's just an arbitrary rule, they don't feel bad about violating it.
Add consequences (to whatever degree your organization allows). Things like a beer/pizza fund that they need to contribute to when they screw up, or a funny hat that needs to be worn, or even a loud announcement to the entire development organization when someone checks in to trunk. It gets the point across quickly.
Does TFS has support for running hook scripts like subversion has?
If it has you can run pre-commit and post-commit checks to see if commits follows process guidelines, reject patches with an email explaining why etc.
If thats too much work my best advice is talking to people and use good old reward for adhering to rules and punishment for breaking them.
What kind of "fixes" are they making to the TRUNK? Typically you should never check-in to TRUNK but only merge...
If they have enhancements or bug fixes that can wait and that are not emergencies they should do their development in the DEV branch.
If it is an emergency then branch off of TRUNK and make a HOTFIX branch. This will be a copy of what is in production.
Example of when you would want to use HOTFIX:
Let's say you have a change you want to make to production or QA but you don't want the future work done in DEV to go out just yet as it has breaking changes for the QA environment or maybe you just want to be as safe as possible and make sure only the code you know you wanted to change went out with your deployment. If you do not have a HOTFIX branch then click on TRUNK and select "Branch" and name it HOTFIX or something meaningful to you. Then make your changes in HOTFIX, check them in, and deploy from the HOTFIX branch. The HOTFIX will only contain two things then A. What is in TRUNK and B. Your one-off changes. It will not include all of the extra work that you haven't validated or tested from the DEV branch, which is a good thing.
You can create user group within TFS to give readonly or no acess at all. If you right mouse click over the team project and click group membership, then add those groups to the folder structure in the source control Explorer.
Related
I have three environments; dev, test and staging/prod. In our previous model of using Team Foundation Server, we would have three branches of code that matched up to each of these three environments.
Developers would work locally and when they had their code complete, they'd check it into the dev branch. When checking in, TFS automatically creates something called a changeset. This check-in would kick off a build of the files into code which then gets deployed to the dev environment.
When a developer was happy with their code in dev, they'd merge just their changeset into the test branch. They'd pull up a complete list of all of the available changesets that dhad not been merged into test, they'd select theirs and check those into the test branch. Again, this would kick off a build and the output files would get deployed to test.
Once QA was happy with the changes, the dev would merge this changeset into the prod branch. Kicking off a build and the files would be deployed to the staging area. The developer and QA would them promote these files to prod.
All of would allow multiple developers to work on the same files using this changeset mentality. When a specific changeset (or set of changesets) was merged into another environment, only those changes would get merged.
In my relatively new exposure to git, I cannot seem to find a way to select specific "pull requests" (which I assume is similar to a TFS changeset) from one branch to another branch. When I try to make a pull request from one branch to another branch, it wants to pull in not only my pull request, but every other pull request made in the lower branch by other developers too. What is the magic way to make this happen?
Note: Unfortunately we don't have the notion of a "release". We have five scrum teams working on one website with over 200 pages. Each scrum team has their own sprints and can release multiple scrum stories during their sprint. We have internally only one DEV environment, and one TEST environment and one PROD environment. Not only are our environments used by these five scrum teams, but these DEV/TEST/PROD sites are is also used by various other teams for integration efforts with applications we sell and also for customer account management and purchasing. We cannot change that infrastructure.
Note: this is not for a discussion as to if this "changeset" methodology is correct or proper. This is a question of how to achieve this behavior in github/git.
Note: we are a set of scrum-based agile teams. We work from stories. As many as 60 stories can be actively in development at any one time with our large team of 25+ developers. When one story is ready for prod, we promote it to the prod environment as an atomic unit. So think of a changeset as a story.
I have two thoughts:
Don't do it this way. Instead, you should look to git-flow. http://danielkummer.github.io/git-flow-cheatsheet/ and http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ are good explanations. At it's core, git-flow is a naming convention for branches, so it's really not tied to git at all. In essence, you have feature branches that each developer or dev team works on. Once they complete a feature, they merge into develop. develop is "done features" -- not "done done" but rather "feature complete." When we deem it time to release, we fork to a new release/someversion branch (name to match the release name), and then work with QA to harden the release. Commits on the release/someversion branch are only bug fixes. Once it's good enough to deploy, we fast-forward the master branch up to the release branch as we push it into production. master then represents what's in production. As we deploy, we also merge release/someversion into develop so the bug fixes get into the mainline of development. The project manager / product owner can then think of the develop branch as "the latest," and developers can continue on their feature branches until they're feature complete. (Hint, make features small -- like an hour or a day. Features are not releases.)
So why is this better than the way you were doing it? If the feature is done, ready enough for QA to start banging on it, it's done enough to be part of the next release. Picking and choosing features around each other will lead you into very subtle and unpredictable bugs. Since you're re-merging at each step, you have the possibility that you'll merge incorrectly, creating a bug. You're also now creating unique product with each step, so you could get to production with a completely different set of features than you vetted in dev and test. (Will this do bad things? Ask your pharmacist if these drugs interact when taken together.)
Git-flow works great for cadences where you have well coordinated, infrequent, larger releases. As you get closer to continuous delivery, this ceremony will get in your way. At that point, you may choose to flip to GitHub flow or a similar lighter-weight naming convention.
If you're really, really, really (see the above "you shouldn't do it this way" comment) convinced you should do it this way, first, go convince a rubber duck and hopefully you will have talked yourself out of it. If you're still really, really convinced you need to do this, you'll frequently need to squash your commits together creating one large commit for the entire feature, then cherry pick the changeset between the branches.
There's a few disadvantages to this "squash and cherry-pick" approach. 1. You lose history. Since you're squashing the history together, you have to now keep features in very contained bundles, and frequently edit the bundle as a whole. One of the primary premises of source control is you get an audit history -- both to roll back to if something goes wrong, and to reference when you need to learn why something works this way or who to talk to about it. (See "git blame".) When you squash, you intentionally remove that learning tool. 2. You're playing features into place in different orders. So you're frequently doing merges. What makes git so awesome is merging is easy. What makes git merging easy is you do it in small pieces. This methodology of squashing everything associated with this feature into one huge commit and cherry-picking it between branches means you're doing very large merges ... which means it will be hard.
Yeah, I know you're quite enamored with the way it's always been, and you really don't want someone telling you your baby is ugly. Sorry. Your baby was ugly. On the bright side, it doesn't need to be. Git flow is awesome, and can definitely facilitate the velocity your team needs.
You previous behavior was dysfunctional. Although not unusual: http://nakedalm.com/avoid-pick-n-mix-branching-anti-pattern/
In Git you most likely want to do two things. The first is to follow Git Flow: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
Once you have this you can look at creating a deployment pipeline for binaries, not for source. You should do a build from MASTER and that build goes through your environments. Happy to discuss here and offline.
In my previous jobs, programmers were encouraged to check-in code often with comments. At my new job now, the rule is that no one checks in anything until his or her code is QA'ed. But because QA lags so much behind, we could rarely check-in. We can probably check in once every 2 weeks or so. And when we are asked to check in, it is really a pain in the neck to sort out what's changed for which ticket that needs to be checked in. Do you guys understand the pain? And the consequence is that very often, we programmers forget to check in some important files for some ticket. Another consequence is that this: I have modified file1.html for both ticket 1 and ticket 2. Now we are asked to check in changes for ticket 1 only, and then I have to save a copy of file1.html outside of my solution and then determine what changes are for ticket 1 and remove those changes for ticket 2 before I check in. Pain!
What's your suggestion? What should I say to convince the team here to stop this check-in policy and allow us to check in as often as we want before it is QA'ed? Thanks!
I'd say you seem to understand the problem fairly well, you just need to lay out the pros/cons of the two approaches.
Error-prone to cherry-pick files to check-in at a later date
The version/files you check-in may not match what QA tested. Ideally QA should be testing the same code that will be release, and your version control system is used to enforce that.
Having QA test code that included other changes that may or may not be in the same release can lead to test passes/failures that are dependent on code that will not be in the release. This can invalidate the QA process.
What you are doing is different than what most other teams are doing (honestly this usually resonates with managers more than the other points - in my experience as a consultant at least)
It sounds like what your team is trying to achieve is have a set of code that has all undergone QA and is "releasable" at any time. This is a good goal, but it is usually achieved by using an appropriate branching strategy.
One approach is to do branch by feature (that's essentially what you're trying to do now, only without the support of a version control system). This means you have a branch for each independent change/feature that you make. QA happens against your feature branch. Once QA passes that feature branch is merged into MAIN (aka trunk).
This way developers have their own feature branch that they can check-in to often (best practice is at least one check-in per day). And you still have the copy of the code that is restricted to only code that has passed QA (MAIN), and is always release-ready.
If you fail to convince them you can also use a local Git repository to keep your personal changes organized, then use the Git-tfs tool to send them over to TFS when it's time to check-in.
I've done a lot of reading, and have been trialing GIT, GIT Tortoise, Tortoise SVN and PlasticSCM, to find the right source control for our small team (5-10 users).
Some background on our team: 6 copy writers/editors (2 remote), 2 developers, 2 graphic designers. We are not always working on projects together, sometimes up to 5 of us might be working on a given project. I'm unconcerned about the developers with DVCS, my concern is mainly around the other roles who are (in the nicest way) limited in their technical capability. Some of our copy writers update multiple source files (HTML, PDFs and adding concept graphics) to live, unversioned build directories (backed up as build.23.06.11.new.new.final.zip!). The copy and GD team will not have time, or to be brutally honest, the inclination to merge/resolve conflicts, or probably even remember to switch branches.
A few SO questions have shed light on what what seems to be a fairly consistent approach - main trunk (no junk in the trunk!) with teams having their own branches, and having release branches etc.
Every time I've re-read the links...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3854583/version-control-system-for-small-in-house-team
Getting started with Version Control
http://svn-ref.assembla.com/subversion-how-tos.html
...and google in general, I still end up asking myself the same questions:
Is it a Bad Idea to create role-specific branches for "trouble points" (copy team), where they can push to the repo, then our developers will merge their work into the actual project branch?
Should I still try to enforce a task-per-branch for everyone else?
Should I do task-per-branch for everyone but let the copy team create very broad tasks?
Is there usually a team/group/person who is considered an "admin" role for a repo who does crucial merges?
(is there an alternative suggested workflow where copy writers don't touch source?)
Unfortunately, the copy teams play a vital role in updating files which in turn affect layouts and all sorts of things, on a continual basis during dev. Its not like I can keep them in a bubble until the end of a project and chuck their work in.
... the good news is that hopefully, after a number of years, I'm ready to force everyone to move to version control! We've also settled on PlasticSCM for its intuitive GUI and Windows integration.
The best answer to this question would try to answer the 4 points above - tackle point 5 if you like - explain weak points if possible, and provide advice, gotchyas, etc.
cheers!
So basically you want to know how to get team-member of different skill-levels to use SCM and play nice with each other.
Buy-in from your team is priority #1. If you can't make them learn it, then you're left with providing a path of least resistance. So you really need to be flexible. There might be a wrong-way and a right-way to use the tool, but if the users won't accept the right-way, then the wrong-way is better than them not using it at all. How you achieve this balance is going to be different for every team.
Is it a Bad Idea to create role-specific branches for "trouble points" (copy team), where they can push to the repo, then our developers will merge their work into the actual project branch?
No, maybe its not optimal, but if this makes it easy for the Copy Team, then thats what you're left with. You could probably go even further and setup each user with their own branch. Then they never have to worry about merging other peoples changes.
Should I still try to enforce a task-per-branch for everyone else?
Each dev should have a unique "local" branch, that is not tracking an upstream branch. For example, use something generic like mydev. This makes it easy for them to switch between their local code and the current upstream branch.
You don't necessarily need to force everyone to create a local branch for every task, cause in the end, you're going to want them just to rebase their working branch onto the upstream one, and commit so it just becomes a fast-forward (i.e. linear commit).
Now for tasks that multiple devs are working on, or it is a feature that involves groups of smaller commits, then yes it does make sense to force them to create a new specific task branch. When they merge they can make sure to force a merge-commit, then it is clear that a set of commits are grouped together and all were part of a specific task. The merge commit will display like merged branch feature-X.
Should I do task-per-branch for everyone but let the copy team create very broad tasks?
It's really up to how much buy-in you can get from the Copy Team. I think if they really get confused with the DVCS tools, then you have to scale back until you can find something that does not cause too much of an impact.
One solution, is to have one of your devs help integrate the Copy Teams changes into another branch that everyone else will look at. That will help offload the learning-curve of the tool onto someone outside of the Copy Team.
Is there usually a team/group/person who is considered an "admin" role for a repo who does crucial merges?
Yes, this makes sense. However the great thing about SCM, is that everyone will be able to go back and do a code review on a merge. So if a merge breaks the code, you can either append the corrections after the merge, or remove the merge, and do it over.
(is there an alternative suggested workflow where copy writers don't touch source?)
Well, one possible technique is the Integration Manager model. The developers commit changes to their own share repos, but its up to the integration manger, to merge in the changes to the blessed repository.
I'm sure there are other methods that might work for your users, but this question is slightly ambiguous.
Should multiple developers work within the same branch, and update - modify - commit ? Or should each developer have his/her own each branch exclusively? And how would sharing branches impact an environment where you are doing routine maintenance as opposed to unmaintained code streams? Also, how would this work if you deploy each developers work as soon as it is done and passes testing (rapidly, as opposed to putting all of their work into a single release).
In general, I have found that having developers (who are working on the same project) use the same branch is better for finding integration problems sooner. If developers are each using an individual branch, then you're just delaying possible integration problems until later, when you merge the branches.
Of course, having developers work on the same branch means you need to have actual communication between those developers, but that's a social problem and not a technical one.
Developers would work on separate branches when there is a good reason for that branch to exist in the first place (such as a patch release of a previous version of the software, or a special build for a specific customer).
Note that tools such as Git and Mercurial allow developers to easily create their own private branches to organise their own work. This is a different situation from more than one developer sharing a branch, and (usually short-lived) private branches should be encouraged.
Branches are meant as a way to version control any feature or experimental piece of code that may break the mainline/trunk.
While it is common for developers to have their own personal branches for deep experimentation, often branches center around a new feature being added. These new features often require more than one person to be committing.
For example, on a web project, two developers and a designer may be doing a facelift to their company website. They still need to keep their mainline/trunk code clean in case they need to make a quick change to it before the facelift is complete. So they create a "facelift" branch and work on that instead. While the developers are committing javascript, the designer can be committing CSS and images. Once the facelift feature is complete, they can merge it into the mainline and send it live.
The only reason any of them would need personal branches would be for experimenting. Perhaps the designer is trying to implement "sliding door" tabs and can't get the padding right in IE6, for example. If he solves the problem, he can merge it into the facelift branch, if he can't, he simply ignores it and continues with the rest of the design back in the facelift branch.
To some extent, the version control software you are using will nudge you into a particular approach. GIT is geared toward open-source contributors and resembles the "one developer" model (branching isn't even a concept in GIT. GIT is more about managing changes). Clearcase is more corporate, so you do have multiple developers on a branch, but each developer gets to play in his or her own view.
I agree with Greg's answer, this is more a social planning issue. Lots of devs on one branch will step on each other's toes. I've been on a project where there were more developers than individual source files :)
I think that merging of branches can be problematic (dropped or inconsistent functionality), regardless of how good the source control tools are. I would more readily opt for multiple developers working on a single main branch. There could be other branches for things like production bug fixes or proof-of-concepts (POCs), where merging could/should happen very soon after change (bug fixes) or good chance that merging may not need to happen (POCs).
I just made the move to version control the other day, and after a bad experience with Subversion, I switched to Mercurial, and so far am happy with it.
Although I understand and appreciate the idea of version control, I don't really have any practical experience with it.
Right now, I am using it for a couple websites I am working on, and a couple questions have come to mind:
When/how often should I commit? After any major change, whether it works or not? When I'm done for the night? Only when it reaches it's next stable iteration? After any bugfixes?
Would I branch off when I wanted to, say, change the layout of a menu, then merge back in?
Should I branch? What is the difference (for just me, a lone developer) between branching, then merging back in, and cloning the repository and pulling it back in?
Any other advice for a version control newbie?
So far, everyone has given me good advice, but very team-oriented. I would like to clarify:
At the moment, I am just using VC on some websites I do on the side. Not quite full-out freelance work, but for the purposes of VC, I am the only one that really touches the website code.
Also, since I am using PHP on the sites, there is no compiling to be done.
Does this change your answers significantly?
Most of the questions you're asking about depends mostly on who you are working with. If you're a lone developer it shouldn't matter a lot, since you can do whatever you'd like. But if you're in a team where you have to share your code then you should discuss with your team members what the code of conduct should be since sharing changes between one another can become tricky at times.
The discussion regarding code of conduct doesn't need to be lengthy, it can be very brief; as long everyone is on the same page on how to use the repository that is shared between the programmers in the team. If you want to use the more advanced features in Mercurial, such as cherry picking or patch queues, then try using them so that it won't impact your team members in a negative way, such as rebasing on a public repository.
Remember version control has to be easy to use for everyone in the team, or else it won't be used.
When/how often should I commit? After any major change, whether it works or not? When I'm done for the night? Only when it reaches it's next stable iteration? After any bugfixes?
While working with a team there are several approaches, but the common rule is to commit early and often. The main reason on why you should commit often is to make merge conflicts easier to handle.
A merge conflict is simply put whenever merging a file that has been changed by at least two people doesn't work because they've been editing on the same lines. If you're holding on to a commit that involves a very large change with several lines of changes across several files, it will become very difficult to manage for the receiver to manage the conflicts that may occur. The merge conflict becomes even more difficult to handle if the said set of changes are held on for too long.
There are some exceptions to the rule of committing often and one is whenever you have a breaking change. although if you have the ability to commit locally (which you are doing in Mercurial and git inherently) you could commit breaking changes. As long as you fix whatever broke, you should push it upstream to the shared repository when you've fixed your own breaking change.
Would I branch off when I wanted to, say, change the layout of a menu, then merge back in?
Should I branch?
There are many branching strategies to choose from (there is the Streamed Lines paper from 1998 that has an exhaustive pattern list of branching strategies) and when you're making them for yourself it should be open game for yourself. However when working in teams, you'd better discuss openly with the team if you need to branch or not. Whenever you have the urge to branch though you should ask yourself the following questions:
Will my future changes be breaking the work of others?
Will my team have a direct negative impact from the changes I'll be doing until I'm done?
Is my code throwaway code?
If the answer is yes in any of the questions above you should probably branch publically, or keep it for yourself (since you can do that in Mercurial in several ways). You should first discuss with your team on how to execute the whole endavour to see if there is any other way of doing it and if you're going to merge your changes back in, sometimes there are factors at play where there is no need to branch (this is mostly related to how modular the code is).
When you decide to branch be prepared to handle a merge conflict. It is sane to assume the one who created the branch and made the commits to be able to merge it back into the "main branch". At these times it would be great if everyone in the team made relevant commit comments.
As a side note: You do write good commit comments, right? RIGHT!? A good commit comment usually tells why that particular change was made or what feature the committer was working on instead of a nondescript "I made a commit" kind of comment. This makes it easier for the one who is handling the big merge conflict to figure out what line changes can be overwritten and which ones to keep while going through the revision history.
Compile times, or build times rather, sometimes play into the branch discussion you may have. If your project has a slow build time then it might be a good idea to use a staging strategy in your branches. This strategy takes into account that all developers should integrate to a "main line" and changes that are approved are elevated (or "promoted") to the next stage, such as testing or release lines. It is classically illustrated with tag names for open source software like this:
main -o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-> ...
\ \ \
test o-----------o--------------o---------> ...
1.0 RC1 \ 1.0 RC2 2.0 RC1
release o----------------------> ...
1.0
The point with this is that testers can work without being interrupted by the programmers and that there is a known baseline for those who are in release management. In distributed version control, the different lines could be cloned repositories and it may look a bit different since repositories share the versioning graph. The principle however is the same.
Regarding web development, there are virtually no build times. But branching in stages (or by tagging your release revisions) it becomes easier to roll-back if you want to check a difficult-to-track-down bug.
However, a whole other thing comes into play and that is the time it takes to deploy the site. Version control tools in my experience are really bad at asset management. Handling art assets that are in total up to several GB usually is a huge pain in the butt to handle in Subversion (more so in Mercurial). Assets may require you to handle them in another way that is less time consuming, such as putting them in a shared space that are synched and backed up in a traditional manner (art assets are usually not worked on concurrently as with source code files).
What is the difference (for just me, a lone developer) between branching, then merging back in, and cloning the repository and pulling it back in?
The concepts of branching and keeping remote repositories are closer now than with centralized version control tools. You could almost consider them being the same thing. In Mercurial (and in git) you can "branch" either by:
Cloning a repository
Creating a named branch
Creating a named branch means that you're making a new path in the versioning graph for the repository you're creating it on. Creating a cloned repository means you're copying the source repository into a new location, and making a new path in the cloned repository's versioning graph. They are both two different implementations of branching as a general concept in version control.
In practice, the only difference between both methods that you should care about is in usage. You clone a repository to have a copy of the source code and have a place to store your own changes in and you create named branches whenever you want to do small experiments for yourself.
Since browsing through branches is a bit quirky for those who accustomed to a straight line of commits, advanced users know how to manipulate their versions so the version history is "clean" with e.g. cherry picking or rebase. At the moment git docs actually explain rebase rather well.
These are the practices that I follow
Each commit should make sense: one bug fix (or a set of bugs related to each other), one (small) new feature, etc. The idea is that if you need to rollback, your rollbacks fall on well defined "boundaries"
Every commit should have a good message explaining what you are committing. Really get into this habit, you will thank yourself later. Doesn't have to be verbose, a few sentences can do. If you are using a bug tracking system, associating a bug number with your commit is also extremely helpful
Now that I use git and branching is so incredibly fast and cheap, I tend to make a new branch for each new feature I'm about to implement. I'd never even consider doing this for many other VCSes. So branching depends on the system you are using, your codebase, your team, etc, there are no hard rules there.
I prefer to always use the command line and get to know my VCS's commands directly. The disconnect that a GUI based frontend can cause can be a pain, and even damaging. Controlling your source code is very important, it's worth getting in there and doing it directly. But that's just my preference.
Back up your VCS. I back up my local repository with Time Machine, and then I push out to a remote repository on my server, and that server is backed up as well. VCS alone is not really a "backup", it can go down too just like anything else.
When/how often should I commit?
You'll probably get lots of contradictory answers on this one. My view is that you should commit changes when they are working, and each commit (or checkin) should contain exactly one "edit". An "edit" is an atomic set of changes that go together to fix a bug or implement a new feature.
There is a theory that you should check in code every few hours even if it's not working, but in that case you will need to be working on your own branch - you don't want to be checking in broken code to your main line, or onto a shared branch.
The advantage of checking in every night is that you have backups (assuming that your repository is on a different machine).
As for branching:
you should have main line that contains always working code.
you should have a current development branch that contains the latest code. When you are happy with this (and it's passed all it's tests) you should merge it back into the main line.
you might want a branch that contains the last released version. This can be used for testing/debugging bugs and releasing patches (in extremis).
update before each commit
provide commit comments
commit as soon as you have something finished
don't commit anything that makes the code in the repository not compiling or buggy
update every morning
sometimes verbally communicate with colleages if there is something important to update
commit code relevant to exactly one thing (i.e. fixing a bug, implementing a feature)
don't worry to make very small commits, as long as they conform to the previous rule
Btw, what's the bad experience with Subversion?
I commit when I am finished a piece of work and only if it is working. It's bad practise to commit to somewhere where other people use the code.
Branching is something that people will argue about. Some people say never branch and just have switches to get something working or not. Do what you feel more comfortable but don't branch just because you can. I use branching and Branch when i am working on a major bit of work where if I commit broken code by accident its not going to affect everyone else.
Q: When/how often should I commit? After any major change, whether it works or not? When I'm done for the night? Only when it reaches it's next stable iteration? After any bugfixes?
A: Whenever you are feeling comfortable, I am commiting as soon as a unit of work is finished and working (which does not mean that the complete task has to be finished). But you should not commit something that does not compile (might inhibit other people in the team,if any). Also, you should not commit incomplete stuff to the trunk if there is any possibility that you have to implement a quick fix or small change before completing it.
Q: Would I branch off when I wanted to, say, change the layout of a menu, then merge back in?
A: Only if there is a possibility that you have to implement a quick fix or small change before completing your task.
The nice thing about branching is that all commits you are doing in the branch will still be available for future reference (if necessary). Also it is much simpler and faster than cloning the repo, I think ;-)
I agree with others on commit times.
Regarding branching, I generally branch only when working on something that breaks what others are doing or when a patch needs to be rolled to production in a file that already has changes that should not go to production. If you're only one developer, then the first scenario doesn't really apply.
I use tags to manage releases - the "production" tag is always associated with the current prod code, and each release is tagged with "release-YYYYMMDD". This allows you to roll back if necessary.