Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Does anybody know of an plugin that can be used to integrate Jira with TFS?
See Combining TFS with Jira - any experiences or advice?
The options are as follows:
TFS4JIRA (commercial / free for personal & non profit use)
UseTFS (commercial / free for community and open-source projects)
Atlassian Connector for Visual Studio (free)
Disclosure: I work for the UseTFS vendor Pigsty.
Apparently it's not a huge priority for Atlassian:
http://jira.atlassian.com/browse/BAM-1950
I've succeeded to integrate TFS and Atlassian Fisheye / Crucible through SvnBridge. It works like a charm. There are couple of additional steps:
You should implement patch 8517 (http://svnbridge.codeplex.com/SourceControl/list/patches) and build SvnBridge with it;
You should change SVNKit version in FishEye. FishEye uses 1.3.3 version of SVNKit which doesn't work with SvnBridge (there are some PROPFIND errors). You should download 1.3.7 version from http://svnkit.com/ and put it into FishEye.
After that everything should work.
There is one more optional patch for SvnBridge which prevents some error logs on server.
But eventually everything works perfect!
You can contact me for binaries and instructions...
I looked for something like this a while ago and couldn't find anything. I also talked to Atlassian developers directly and they didn't know of nothing that could help either.
That said, I ended up writing a custom integration piece for my customer to create TFS items from Jira items and then have the TFS status updates reflected back into Jira. It took just over a day to build so it's fairly straight forward to do assuming you know a bit of Java and both the Jira API (I used the XMLRPC interface) and TFS API's. Due to the way both systems work it required building a small middleware piece to listen for events from TFS and also to act as a REST end point for a custom action in Jira to call when the user clicked a "send to TFS" button.
Apart from that it was a case of adding some custom fields to the work item definitions on both sides to hold the cross reference values and then doing the mapping of values from one item to the other.
Unfortunately I don't have the code to share since it's on the customer site, otherwise I'd throw what I have up on a gist for you to look at. Sorry.
You can use SVN Bridge to provide an SVN interface over your TFS installation. Then set up Jira / FishEye as if it was an SVN repository.
You could use the TFS Integration Platform. However there is no adapter for JIRA yet, however using the TFS Integration Platform (and I assume a good easy API JIRA has) means it shouldn't be too hard to do.
I created a project a while back on this topic which may come handy for you.
It's released on github. feel free to branch it and make changes.
https://github.com/mahpour/TFSToJira
Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Is Google code similar to Github where you can put your source code for collaboration?
Which is the de-facto SCM it's using?
And which one is recommended for project hosting?
Update 2013:
All major repo hosting services supports git, and supports smart https access (see below):
code.google.com (with cases like this one, July 2011)
bitbucket.org
tfs.visualstudio.com (!, as explained by Scott Hanselman)
Currently (July 2013), the main difference (between GitHub and other services) is in term of release management, more specifically:
integration with Travis CI (continuous integration, possible more or less with all services)
release artifacts: See "GitHub Release Your Software (July, 2d 2013)":
The ability to associate to a tag up to 100MB of binaries.
Initial answer (September 2010)
One big difference is the support by GitHub for smart http, as explained in the ProGit "smart http" section, supported since April 2010.
Being behind a firewall at work, that is more than useful to actually push anything to the remote repo!
I don't think "Google Code" support it officially, even though some contributors try to push that feature.
Yes, they are similar but support different versioning systems. Also the collaboration style is different. While Github (and Launchpad and BitBucket and all the other DVCS hosters) focus more on active collaboration between forked projects, Google Code's primary way of collaboration is through tickets.
So none of them is per-se better than the other, but perhaps fits your project management and contribution/collaboration style better. The whole debate between centralized and decentralized code versioning systems is related to that.
Some features that you should consider:
Open source:
Google: Always open source.
Git: Open source for free account, but you can pay to switch to close source.
VCS: Both google & github support Git (and others)
Wiki: Google wiki is poorly supported, unless you love to write with wiki tags. You can find many project in Google project hosting has there wiki in Git hub.
Statitstics: Github provides many nice statistics chart, while Google provides only a list of updates
Git:
Google:
AFAIK Google code is yet to support git natively. At least as far as I can tell by the comments on the ticket open for this.
So if you are using or would like to use Git then Github will be naturally more suitable.
On the other hand if you are using SVN and would like to continue to then Google code might be a more natural fit.
I have found Github projects easier to set up and get going but that is fairly subjective. Some of my friends also claim that Github's support/ecosystem is better than Google's.
Use GitHub. GitHub gives each account its own namespace for project names, so you don't have to worry about your project names having already been taken by people's projects. If you're using Google Code, however, then you do have to worry about this.
If you need private repos, you won't get that with Google Code. At least not yet; see this open issue: http://code.google.com/p/support/issues/detail?id=1829
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
So looking at different version control systems: subversion, accurev, surround, tfs, bitkeeper/git/mercurial
Subversion: I see it's quite the popular standard
Accurev: There seems to be a love hate relationship around it.
Surround and TFS: I haven't seen many comments around them.
Bitkeeper/Git/Mercurial: Seem pretty popular, but I think "distributed" may scare my manager lol
For some reason he seems attracted to Surround and it's not because of sales pitch. We had originally downloaded it for evaluation played around with it but nothing came of it. So now we are back to looking at scm and wants to try it again. So far I haven't seen any buzz around it like some other version control systems. Same for TFS
I've been using Surround SCM at my job and I'll say it is what it is, but there are a few things that I find lacking. Though, I've heard that surround scm integrates well with surround's issue tracking system, but I can't comment on that because we don't use that.
I personally find the UI to be buggy and confusing.
The workflows are confusing and often offer you with prompts that don't apply, so you get used to ignoring warnings.
eg. "are you sure you don't want to auto-merge?" "Are you sure you want to overwrite files?"
The UI always badgers you to use the auto-merge feature but every
time I've tried it, it ends up messing up my code (C#).
On top of that, the packaged diff tool (Guiffy) is buggy and doesn't display text
properly.
Weird workflow quirks can result in your changes being overwritten.
It doesn't do directory syncing
...which means that every time you add a new file to your project you must by-hand go and add it to the SCM repository. If you don't, everything will look normal to you until one of your teammates emails you because you broke the build.
There's no good way to copy over revision histories when you are branching
... which means that you are less likely to branch when you should be. There's nothing more frustrating than to have to store code locally because you're making changes right before a release and your team refuses to branch the code into another repository.
There's no good way to blacklist certain files from being checked-in or from being overwritten during an update.
If there's a file that you don't want to check-in then you're left with the painful chore of scanning through a long list of files and deselecting those you don't want every time you want to check-in. Yuck.
Features aren't documented that well
Of course, they release a user's guide but it's about as helpful as Microsoft Windows help function. It tells you step by step how to do things in the UI (ie. "click 'Create Shadow Directory', then click 'OK'", but it doesn't tell you what those features are, how they are intended to be used, what actually happens server-side etc.
Btw, if you know of any good way to get around these problems let me know :)
Danger! Danger, Will Robinson!
Surround is a data jail. Once you commit to it, you're stuck. There is no known way to get your history back out to another SCM. Don't get trapped!
This tends to be a problem with closed-source SCMs in general, but I have direct reports that it's especially bad with Surround.
Subversion, git, Mercurial, or Bazaar would be better choices.
I have used Surround at my job for about three years.
It does work well with their (Seapine's) test management and issue tracker program. If you are already using TestTrack, I would say Surround is a good choice.
In general I agree with #eremzeit, but the 'buggy and confusing' comment rarely applies to our workflow. The default diff tool (Guiffy) is bad, but often good enough.
One part I like is the easy ability to share files across repositories without needing to share a whole project/repository. Git does not have a mechanism to do this easily.
Last note: we have used Surround on Linux and Windows and it appears to work just as well on either. It is nice to have the same interface.
Surround SCM.
Pros:
Can apply a development work flow for all files. No two revisions of a file can be in the same status in the work flow.
Has a good UI.
Good licensing system.
Cons:
Stores all data in a RDBMS.. heading for a performance problem if the repo size is huge.
Does not support atomic commits. (you can do atomic commits but the files are still revisions and cannot be refereed using the changelist #)
My ideas about other tools
Subversion suits well for a corporate setup. Perforce is like subversion but faster and has a good UI, simple licensing terms and really super support system.
Recently Accurev has gained a strong footing with its innovative branching methodology.
IMHO. go for tool sets that interact well with your defect tracking, test case management and build management solution. This would help you create a good developer ecosystem thereby saving time.
We have a fairly large project, and I've decided that Google Code is not quite living up to expectations. Github looks like a much more suitable platform -- but I feel like there's no escape for us. Is it a case of migrating stuff over manually? We're using svn currently, so I understand that we'll need to move to git somehow - is this going to be possible considering that I don't have admin access to our repository? Also, I know this is subjective and I don't want to start a holy war, but please also comment on your feelings about Google Code vs Github. Should we also be considering SourceForge?
I've used all, and now I am using github and I am completely satisfied. Sourceforge had annoying ads and was slow, google code didn't have the features I wanted/needed.
As for moving to github, they have a guide here, the process should be quite simple:
http://help.github.com/svn-importing/
We're using svn currently, so I understand that we'll need to move to git somehow - is this going to be possible considering that I don't have admin access to our repository?
Nope, you can use git svn to convert a repo, even if you don't have admin access. Here's a good tutorial (from one of the GitHub guys, no doubt) that explains how to convert an SVN repo to Git (including how to migrate tags and branches properly, which git-svn doesn't do very well).
but please also comment on your feelings about Google Code vs Github.
I've never used Google Code for personal projects. I know from a visitor's standpoint, I like the interface and tools used by GitHub a lot better.
Should we also be considering SourceForge?
Ugh... I personally think SourceForge is probably the worst of the free source code hosting facilities nowadays.
I think before you go through all the work to migrate to github (which is great yes) I would consider what your problem actually is. If it is just that you are using svn and that is not a distributed version control system you could just migrate your google code repository to be HG (Mercurial) based and you would get all the benefits of a distributed version control system but could otherwise stay at google code (which has great features that github does not have as well..)
Google announced today that they're closing Google Code. They added a migration tool to export projects to GitHub, it just takes one click.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Assume I own some open source project with no license information. Furthermore, assume nobody has contributed publicly yet and so I own the project's source code and copyright.
Say the source code is already hosted online. If I decide to give it an open source license by uploading the associated COPYING document to the repository and adjusting the source files accordingly, will the previous versions of the project become licensed as well? Or will the current and future versions be protected while previous versions fall under public domain?
Alternatively, say I start a new project using a DVCS (e.g. Mercurial) on my local machine. I commit all my changes (locally) and then add license information in a later changeset. If I were to host the project/repository, will the entire history be licensed or only the versions following that changeset?
In (2), the project is initially not hosted so this does not seem like a problem. But once it's uploaded, some of the project's history will not include the license information, making the result look almost exactly like (1).
I ask because Google Code allows you to select a license on a new project, even if you intend to import the repository afterward, making licensing seem somewhat external to the actual source code, whereas bitbucket.org does not.
If you want the license to apply to the whole history, just say so in the license file, something like 'This file was added at revision x, but you may consider that the license applies to all revisions prior to x as well'.
You can view it as the license declaring what it covers... legalbol is code, scoping can be made explicit if you want.
As long as you're not using any GPL libraries then what you do with your code is up to you. You can say that you code is retroactively GPL or you can say what version is GPL and what version is BSD and what version is Apache license. You can even offer dual license: use GPL or pay me $100 to use BSD (kind of like what the Qt guys did before they decided to offer LGPL).
Now, if you are using a GPL licensed library then your code is already GPL.
I'm not a lawyer but as far as I know code or any form of content being plainly on the web doesn't really make it public domain.
Regarding the timing of your license: If you attach a license to your code in revision 100, this should only affect revision 100 and future changesets until you change that license again. Otherwise you could, for example, revert code from being opensource afterwards.
From my understanding the license that you get when checking out some code (with a given revision) is the license applicable to that revision of the project. IMO this is also what makes forks from projects possible that went from some OSI-license to a closed one using the opensource code.
Consequently, you should probably create a new repo with the license information in place before putting it online.
Why do you want to expose the source history? The easiest solution to your scenario is to simply copy your code and create a brand new repository, then post this new repository somewhere, along with an open source license. Pull the source that is currently hanging out online without a license, and you're golden. The old source and the new source are completely separate and there shouldn't be any problems. If someone has a copy of the old source, you probably can't do anything to stop them from doing whatever they want with it, but you've got a clean slate for everything going forward. Anything pulled from your new repo (the one with the license) will be covered by that license.
I'm assuming that you are the author of the source that is currently hosted online. If you're not, then you've got other issues to contend with, namely, whether or not you have the right to specify a license for someone else's source code - probably not.
If you use LGPL (or Apache or Berkeley-Licensed) code you're better off then using GPL code which requires that all code which is written based on this code has to be published as open source.
See http://www.google.com/help/faq_codesearch.html#license, but you may get better information regarding Google code from this source.
There are many free online services which provides you with large spaces to store your personal materials, mails, etc. But is there any place that can let us host our code - which keeps the change history?
Google Code or SourceForge may not be a ideal place because it requires creating a project which is specific and useful to others, while what I want is a place to hold any kind of code which I think is useful but may not be for anybody else.
It's all about Github. 300 MB repository for free. Nice interface, easy to use. Plus we all know GIT > SVN :)
You can get free GIT and SVN hosting at unfuddle.com
BitBucket allow for public and private Mercurial repositories.
Github has Gists that might work for you. Also, Snipplr.
http://codeplex.com is where MS provides open source source control via Team Foundation Server.
projectlocker is also a good alternative for free Subversion, Git hosting..
You can also get free, private SVN hosting at http://beanstalkapp.com/. Their 100MB package is free.
Google Code link.
How about http://cvsdude.com/ which paid or http://xp-dev.com/ which is free.
come on guys don't you see that he is interest only in hosting online some fragments
of code like some functions etc not full projects and also not public but private.
Of course it is possible with each and every solution you all said in your posts
but it is not exactly what he was looking for .
You all replied like spammers and is that's funny
So why don't you just use http://gist.github.com/
as someone already mentioned
You can host private projects on DevjaVu is you want to use Subversion.
http://www.svnhostingcomparison.com/
CVSDude does free 2M subversion repository, you can also use CVS if you pay.
I've used http://planetsourcecode.com/ to store all sorts of bits of code. Users even upload entire applications.
There are even online code editors available (well, a kind of, that project is still in the development phase).
Linky: https://bespin.mozilla.com/
I've used CodeSpaces for over a year now and never had a problem. I'm a new user so I apparently can't post links...
There are plenty of answers already submitted which are suited to hosting full-fledged applications so I won't bother adding to the list but if you're looking at hosting smaller things (code snippets, simpler projects) with revision history you could consider using a wiki?
I know this was posted 4 years ago, but you could always just sign up on Pastebin and have private source code there.
Pastebin has been around since 2002 and is currently "the #1 paste tool". It supports a number of syntaxes (including C++, C, Ruby, and Java. Full list on site.)
Edit;
Their PRO plan is only $2.95 USD for one month or $1.99 USD/mo if you purchase for a full year. You can find out more on the limits of free vs Pro here.
Edit 2;
If nothing else, sign up for Dropbox, SkyDrive, or Mediafire and upload your files there.
Team Services has free, private, unlimited, Git repos for version control. You also get integrated bug and work item tracking, enterprise Agile tools for DevOps, like backlogs and Kanban boards, automated build, test, and release plus other team capabilities to build and ship apps.
You can connect with Xcode, Eclipse, IntelliJ, Android Studio, Visual Studio, or any dev tool you like.
Team Services is free for the first 5 users with Basic access, plus unlimited stakeholders working on the backlog, and Visual Studio subscribers. Here's how to get started with Team Services.