In VS, it's simple. Everything the project needs is stored in the project folder and all VS settings are stored in one place. Eclipse, however, stores Eclipse settings with the project and keeps a .metadata at the workspace level which is needed to detect the projects in the workspace. Thus, I can't simply branch a project and then open it in Eclipse. I need to set up a workspace, branch it into that workspace, copy over all my workspace settings (settings import/export doesn't even work right in Eclipse) so I have the same Eclipse settings, then do some kind of import to get the project in the workspace. This is what I generally refer to as a pain in the freaking neck, and it causes me to not branch any Java projects and to keep them all in one folder. This is also a pain.
Is there any way I can get a setup where I can just branch a project and open it in Eclipse, while maintaining the same Eclipse settings?
UPDATE: The current state of the question is expressed by the comment to soru's post.
Pretty sure you want to:
Keep the same workspace for all projects (or maybe a few, at the level of say 'hobby' and 'work').
switch between different branches in the same project by using the features of your version control tool/plugin
if you want to work on multiple branches at the same time, just create two projects, and manage them both as above.
if you want to temporarily hide the inactive version, use the 'working set' feature.
The main limitation is that you might want to have projects with the same name, but you can't. So sometimes you have to make up a project name different from the underlying folder name.
In general, mapping between VS and Eclipse:
Installation <-> workspace
Solution <-> working set
Project <-> project or folder or VC system branch or working set node
Refs:
VS object model
using working sets in Eclipse
working with branches in subclipe
Well, I'm not a fan of keeping any IDE specific settings in the repo, but when I do I keep only .project, .classpath and .settings.
You can also keep you settings at the workspace level (Windows->Preferences),and not on the project level (Project->Properties).
Also why do you create a seperate workspace for branches? You can keep it in one workspace, no need to create another one.
You could also use "switch" in subversion (I don't know if that's what you are using, but other revision systems should have something similar) and go to the branch you have created.
(of course if you wan to work concurrently on more than one branch then it doesn't help)
I can't speak to the Eclispe problem, as i'm only a n00b user, but I can speak to the secondary question.
I've been working in systems for a number of years that ended up needing to have various branches of the same code done for a variety of reasons.
One of the best reasons for keeping specific settings in project-specific locations is that so the various compiler / sdk / etc. settings & files can be specific per-branch and not collide between branches.
This allows, for example, for the work to upgrade a code set to a newer sdk/compiler to be done without impacting the ability to work on the existing "main line" code set with the previous sdk/compiler should the need arise.
In my experience in the computer game industry as a core technology wog, this happens a LOT.
I'm sure the same situations occur outside the computer game industry, maybe just not at the same pace.
Related
How do I have a Project Explorer's Working Set be built automatically from the contents of .gitignore, and then kept in sync with .gitignore?
I am working on a C++ AutoTools project which, as it is common for AutoTools projects, generates quite a lot of files during the build stage. I do have them .gitignored already. Now I'm trying Eclipse on that project, and found that I'd have to carefully pick files to ignore again.
You cannot. This feature does not exist.
The working sets functionality was implemented a long time before GIT appeared, and it was a method for removing clutter in large projects, and what is important, it was was a method that resided in the UI domain.
In fact, A working set extension point documentation shows it is possible to create a self-updating working set, and the search over the egit codebase returns no results.
As I have said, this feature is not implemented.
However, you can create your own plugin that will do what you want. It is not very complicated, and should not take more than a day or two. Or just open a feature request in the Eclipse bugzilla.
As for your underlying problem, you could try using the derived resources mechanism. It was added to make possible to prevent team providers (CVS/GIT) from managing files that are a result of a build.
Just a word of warning - GIT won't allow you to ignore further changes to any resource already under its control.
I am looking quickly move changes between Salesforce Production & Sandbox. Is there any way we can know the difference between two environments i.e How many workflows, objects, email templates are modified/added in compared view.
I know we can use outbound change set but its tedious job of moving the changes and not feasible when Production is continuously being updated.
After speaking with the experts at two Dreamforce conferences I find the only way to get a description of an instance is to use the force.com IDE, as suggested by LaceySnr. I've learned a couple techniques that help.
First, I no longer even attempt to use change sets. These are time consuming to build, have no clarity as to what is really inside and sometimes just won't work.
Second, I keep at least two force.com IDE projects for each instance (test,production). The first project has everything (check everything in the metadata component). The second project is tiny and only has the components I want to work on.
The first project is checked into some change control system; CVS, SVN, Git, Mercurial, etc. Your choice. Using the differencing tools on this project let's you compare change sets.
But it is nearly impossible to develop using the first project because it takes too long for force.com to process even the smallest change. This is because it processes the entire project whenever any change is made. So, make all the code changes in the smaller project.
Then look at the ANT build tools http://www.salesforce.com/us/developer/docs/apexcode/Content/apex_deploying_ant.htm to automate the migration of changes from the smaller to larger project.
I've not done this with workflows, but it is a method I use for code, layouts and objects: Use the force.com IDE from http://developer.force.com to setup projects for both Sandbox and Production, being sure to select all of the metadata components that you want (you'll want to include workflows for instance).
This will leave you with the contents of your projects stored inside a project directory in the IDE's workspace directory, then you can easily use a diff tool (I use the free DiffMerge on Mac) to compare the directories, and of course drill down into files to see what changes exist.
There are often conflicts in the Xcode project file (Project.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj) when merging branches (I'm using git). Sometimes it's easy, but at times I end up with a corrupt project file and have to revert. In the worst case I have to fix up the project file manually in a second commit (which can be squashed with the previous) by dragging in files etc.
Does anyone have tips for how to handle merge conflicts in big and complex files like the Xcode project file?
EDIT-- Some related questions:
Git and pbxproj
Should I merge .pbxproj files with git using merge=union?
RESOURCES:
http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/xmldiffmerge
http://www2.informatik.hu-berlin.de/~obecker/XSLT/#merge
http://tdm.berlios.de/3dm/doc/thesis.pdf
http://www.cs.hut.fi/~ctl/3dm/
http://el4j.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/el4j/trunk/el4j/framework/modules/xml_merge/
Break your projects up into smaller, more logical libraries/packages. Massive projects are regularly the sign of a bad design, like the object that does way too much or is way too large.
Design for easy rebuilding -- this also helps if you're writing programs which must be built by multiple tools or IDEs. Many of my 'projects' can be reconstructed by adding one directory.
Remove extraneous build phases. Example: I've removed the "Copy Headers" build phase from all projects. Explicitly include the specific files via the include directive.
Use xcconfig files wherever possible. This also reduces the number of changes you must make when updating your builds. xcconfig files define a collection of build settings, and support #include. Of course, you then delete the (majority of) user defined settings from each project and target when you define the xcconfig to use.
For target dependencies: create targets which perform logical operations, rather than physical operations. This is usually a shell script target or aggregate target. For example: "build dependencies", "run all unit tests", "build all", "clean all". then you do not have to maintain every dependency change every step of a way - it's like using references.
Define a common "Source Tree" for your code, and a second for 3rd party sources.
There are external build tools available. This may be an option for you (at least, for some of your targets).
At this point, a xcodeproj will be much simpler. It will require fewer changes, and be very easy to reconstruct. You can go much further with these concepts to further reduce the complexity of your projects and builds.
You might want to try https://github.com/simonwagner/mergepbx/
It is a script that will help you to merge Xcode project files correctly. Note that it is still alpha.
Disclaimer: I am the author of mergepbx.
The best way I have found is to instruct Git to treat the .pbxproj file as a binary. This prevents messy merges.
Add this to your .gitatributes file:
*.pbxproj -crlf -diff -merge
To compare two Xcode projects open open FileMerge (open xcode and select Xcode (from the manu pane) --> Open developer tools --> FileMerge).
now click "left" button and open xcode project main directory.
click "right" button and open xcode project main directory to compare.
Now click "merge" button!
Thats it!
Another option to consider which may help to reduce the number of times you experience the problem. To explain, I'll call the branch that team members' branches come from the "develop" branch.
Have a convention in your team that when the project file is modified, the changes (along with any other changes required to ensure the build integrity) are committed in a separate commit. That commit is then cherry picked onto the develop branch. Other team members who plan to modify the project file in their branch can then either cherry pick into their branch or rebase their branch on the latest develop. This approach requires communication across the team and some discipline. As I said, it won't always be possible; on some projects it might help a lot and on some projects it might not.
We're using eclipse and svn. We keep the .project file in version control.
The problem is, if you have more than one checked-out project (e.g. a trunk checkout and a feature branch) and would like them both to be available in Eclipse, you lose, because the .project files are identical and therefore can't both be imported into Eclipse.
What's the right way to deal with this? (I'm mostly having to deal with this in TI's Code Composer v4 which uses an older version of eclipse, but I'm also going to need to do this in the regular Eclipse)
I recommend setting up separate workspaces for working on multiple branches. It is possible to do it all in one workspaces, but it gets awkward in a hurry. Depending on which tooling you use, you may need to close projects from branches you are currently not working on to keep them from interfering.
Since Eclipse3.3, you find bugs like:
Bug 218973
[Import/Export] Import existing projects wizard: can't import two version of same project
Bug 110135
[Import/Export] Import existing projects wizards: enhancements for duplicate projects
Both bugs illustrates that this issue hasn't been fixed yet.
Separate workspaces (like Konstantin advices in his answer) is the best option.
Modifying the .project as described in this thread is not very practical.
I think modifying the .project is a solution if it already checked out.
Another solution is during checkout to define a different name to the project.
Third solution, and the one I use is changing the project name on the source-control when creating a branch.
I also prefer one workspace so that all my preferences are correct and coherent.
I use working sets to separate branches. In the past I was closing and reopening the projects of branches, but window working set is a better approach and most views support it quite good.
I work on a large project where all the source files are stored in a version control except the project files. This was the lead developer's decision. His reasoning was:
Its to time consuming to reconcile the differences among developers' working directories.
It allows developers to work independently until their changes are stable
Instead, a developer initially gets a copy of a fellow developer's project files. Then when new files are added each developer notifies all the rest about the change. This strikes me as far more time consuming in the long run.
In my opinion the supposed benefits of not tracking changes to the project files are outweighed by the danger. In addition to references to its needed source files each project file has configuration settings that would be very time consuming and error prone to reproduce if it became corrupted or there was a hardware failure. Some of them have source code embedded in them that would be nearly impossible to recover.
I tried to convince the lead that both of his reasons can be accomplished by:
Agreeing on a standard folder structure
Using relative paths in the project files
Using the version control system more effectively
But so far he's unwilling to heed my suggestions. I checked the svn log and discovered that each major version's history begins with an Add. I have a feeling he doesn't know how to use the branching feature at all.
Am I worrying about nothing or are my concerns valid?
Your concerns are valid. There's no good reason to exclude project files from the repository. They should absolutely be under version control. You'll need to standardize on a directory structure for automated builds as well, so your lead is just postponing the inevitable.
Here are some reasons to check project (*.*proj) files into version control:
Avoid unnecessary build breaks. Relying on individual developers to notify the rest of the team every time the add, remove or rename a source file is not a sustainable practice. There will be mistakes and you will end up with broken builds and your team will waste valuable time trying to determine why the build broke.
Maintain an authoritative source configuration. If there are no project files in the repository, you don't have enough information there to reliably build the solution. Is your team planning to deliver a build from one of your developer's machines? If so, which one? The whole point of having a source control repository is to maintain an authoritative source configuration from which you build and deliver releases.
Simplify management of your projects. Having each team member independently updating their individual copies of your various project files gets more complicated when you introduce project types that not everyone is familiar with. What happens if you need to introduce a WiX project to generate an MSI package or a Database project?
I'd also argue that the two points made in defense of this strategy of not checking in project files are easily refuted. Let's take a look at each:
Its to time consuming to reconcile the differences among developers' working directories.
Source configurations should always be setup with relative paths. If you have hard coded paths in your source configuration (project files, resource files, etc.) then you're doing it wrong. Choosing to ignore the problem is not going to make it go away.
It allows developers to work independently until their changes are stable
No, using version control lets developers work in isolation until their changes are stable. If you each continue to maintain your own separate copies of the project files, as soon as someone checks in a change that references a class in a new source file, you've broken everyone on the team until they stop what they're doing and carefully update their project files. Compare that experience with just "getting latest" from source control.
Generally, a project checked out of SVN should be working, or there should be tools included to make it work (e.g. autogen.sh). If the project file is missing or you need knowledge about which files should be in the project, there is something missing.
Automatically generated files should not be in SVN, as it is pointless to track the changes to these.
Project files with relative path belong under source control.
Files that don't: For example in .Net, I would not put the .suo (user options) web.config (or app.config under source control. You may have developers using different connection strings, etc.
In the case of web.config, I like to put a web.config.example in. That way you copy the file to web.config upon initial checkout and tweak what settings you'd like. If you add something that needs to be added to all web.config, you merge those lines into the .example version and notify the team to merge that into their local version.
I think it depends on the IDE and configuration of the project. Some IDEs have hard-coded absolute paths and that's a real problem with multiple developers working on the same code with different local copies and configurations. Avoid absolute path references to libraries, for example, if you can.
In Eclipse (and Java), it's fine to commit .project and .classpath files (so long as the classpath doesn't have absolute references). However, you may find that using tools like Maven can help having some independence from the IDE and individual settings (in which case you wouldn't need to commit .project, .settings and .classpath in Eclipse since m2eclipse would re-create them for you automatically). This might not apply as well to other languages/environments.
In addition, if I need to reference something really specific to my machine (either configuration or file location), it tend to have my own local branch in Git which I rebase when necessary, committing only the common parts to the remote repository. Git diff/rebase works well: it tends to be able to work out the diffs even if the local changes affect files that have been modified remotely, except when those changes conflict, in which case you get the opportunity to merge the changes manually.
That's just retarded. With a set up like that, I can have a perfectly working project containing files that are subtly different from everyone else. Imagine the havoc this would cause if someone accidentally propagates this mess into QA and everyone is trying to figure out what's going on. Imagine the catastrophe that would ensue if it ever got released to the production environment...!