I have been using an open source Java project and had to make some custom changes for our site. I have downloaded the source code via Subversion, modified two files and built a custom JAR file. Now I need to store these custom changes into OUR Subversion source control system. What is the best way to do this?
Should I check the entire tagged version of the open source code into our system and then create a branch with our change in it? Or should I just check-in our custom files and rely on the open source tagged version to always be around? Or perhaps something else altogether?
Take a good look at Subversion vendor branches, which are meant for "maintain[ing] custom modifications to third-party data in your own version control system". This sounds like exactly what you want. You would create a vendor branch for the open source Java project in your main repo (from their last SVN revision before your modifications). Then, check in your modifications. In the future, you can merge in upstream changes.
The Subversion book is free and available online, with a section devoted to choosing a repository layout.
the Subversion community recommends
that you choose a repository location
for each project root—the “topmost”
directory that contains data related
to that project—and then create three
subdirectories beneath that root:
trunk, meaning the directory under
which the main project development
occurs; branches, which is a directory
in which to create various named
branches of the main development line;
and tags, which is a collection of
tree snapshots that are created, and
perhaps destroyed, but never changed.
I'm happy to elaborate if you are having trouble determining what exactly this means for your project.
First try to avoid this as long as you can, if it is possible try to get your changes into the open-source project (less work for your self in the future...)
But if that was not a option, I would follow Matthew Flaschen advice about vendor branches.
Related
I want to write a code (in fact a latex file) with other collaborators. We wish to collaborate through Dropbox and version control our file with Bazaar.
How to do it? Is there a short tutorial how to do this?
Is there a better way to collaborate on a single file in Dropbox, that is, without a version control system?
Is there a better control version system suitable for Dropbox, which is also easy to learn.
NOTES: I use only the bare basics of version control in Bazzar. I don't know how to use any version control systems properly, unfortunately. I need some very simple mechanism.
Create a Bazaar repository without a working tree on your shared dropbox folder:
bzr init --no-tree /path/to/subfolder/in/dropbox
You and your team can checkout or branch from this common repository. The good thing about not have a working tree is that nobody will work on it directly by mistake. It's cleanest if each of you checkout/branch from this repository.
If you already have an existing repository, you can push it to the dropbox folder without a working tree like this:
cd /your/local/working/tree
bzr push --no-tree /path/to/subfolder/in/dropbox
The above is a standalone repository setup. If later you want to share multiple branches with your team, it will be more optimal to use a shared repository instead. That way will save storage space and bandwidth. I think it's probably a bit advanced for you now, but if you need it in the future, you can easily migrate your existing repository to a shared repository setup like this:
cd /path/in/dropbox
bzr init-repo --no-trees repo
bzr branch /path/to/old/repo repo/trunk
Afterward you can create multiple branches side by side with trunk inside the repo to share within your team, and it will be efficient.
As per your second question, I think it's better to use version control rather than a single unversioned file. This is a bit of an investment, but it will surely pay off in the long term.
As per your second question, Bazaar is a very easy to use, very intuitive tool. I think it's an excellent choice for you. (Disclaimer: I recently wrote a book on Bazaar.)
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...!
I have an app in the iPhone app store and have released several minor updates to it. I want to begin work on some major feature additions and reorganization, but don't want to lose the source code of my most recent version in case everything goes horribly wrong.
Should I start a new Xcode project from scratch and copy my existing source in? If I do this will I be able to submit the build from this new project as an update or will Apple complain that the build comes from a different Xcode project?
I've seen (but not used) Xcode's "Snapshots" and "Source Control" features - are these what I'm looking for?
Any help or direction greatly appreciated.
I would suggest getting your project into some kind of Source Control. The popular ones these days are Subversion (Xcode has built-in support for it, but the support is pretty crappy), git, and Mercurial, all of which run great on the Mac.
You would add your project to a git/svn/hg/etc repository, and then "tag" the repository with something meaningful ("Shipping Version 1.3" or something) (alternatively you could just branch your project at its current state and give that a meaningful name). Then you can do your developments, add and commit the changes to your repository. If you need to revert back to your old shipping version, that's quite simple because you tagged it before you started work (think of a tag like a snapshot).
The other option is to start a fresh Xcode project and copy things over. I have personally done this and shipped just fine to the App Store (just make sure things like your app's bundle id "com.whatever.app" matches with the original one, and make sure you codesign properly) and you're good to go.
Having said that, unless you have a really great reason to start with a fresh project, you're probably better off using source control management with one of the aforementioned tools (git is my preference).
You are using some form of source control right? If not, stop what you are doing and make sure to set up an svn repository. Svn is bundled with your mac and integrates with Xcode.
You also may want to start thinking about doing backups...
I highly recommend you check out Git. There is great Git support built into XCode 4, and you can use Git just fine with XCode 3 as well.
One great thing about Git is that you do not need a server to take advantage of the source code management features. It is a lot easier for a solo developer to work with than SVN once you get your head wrapped around it.
I also highly recommend GitX - a free graphical UI for Git that is absolutely amazing.
One other recommendation it GitBox - a simple tool that allows using a Dropbox as a Git master repository. This is great for sharing code between multiple machines without needing to have or pay for Git hosting at GitHub or elsewhere.
You can either do what the people said before, and use svn git or the like, OR if you don't want to mess around with any of that you can simply create your own version control by copying and pasting the folder and name it "project name x.x" and modify the version without the version number on it
snapshots are the first step. when you are comfortable with them you can hook up to an SVN server for your offsite backup
just make a snapshot after your distribution build and label with the version number
The quickest, easiest, short-term solution is to select the Xcode project folder, and duplicate it. This will create a duplicate of everything in the project. Apple won't care that it comes from a duplicate project.
For the long term, look into setting up an SVN. This will help you save your previous versions every time you make changes.
Since you are new to source control management so might I suggest using Subversion.
Subversion has less features than Git, but you don't have the confusion between pushing and committing (locally vs remotely) and you will find there is more software that supports Subversion than Git or Mercurial.
If you need a quick backup, you can always zip the current working folder for your Xcode project, then name it something like:
MyApplication-Version-1.00.zip
What I currently do is I link the project to another location and give it the same name, then check the box where it says "Branch after share."
And then I would Check out the shared project and work off it. And finally merge with the original project.
This works okay, but it feels very clunky: I have multiple instances of the project on my drive; I have to change physical address of the website (i use asp.net 1.1) every time I work on a different branch;
That doesn't feel like the right way to do it. How do you branch your projects with VSS?
I think the way you describe in the question is the only way you can do it in sourceSafe.
I usually name the copied directory "V1.0" (or whatever is appropriate) and keep them all in a folder that is the main project name.
That is the generally accepted way of branching your source code in SourceSafe. The only other way to do it, if merging and retaining the history are not an issue, is to copy the files to a new folder, remove the read-only attribute, remove the .vssscc and .scc files, and then add that new project to SourceSafe. At that point, you have an all new project, with no prior history.
You can find a good reference here: http://www.codepool.biz/version-control/sourcesafe/branch-in-sourcesafe-vss.html
Basically right-click-drag your folder to where you want a branch, and when you let go you are given share/branch/recursive options.
Shudder.
The way you described is the only supported way to do "branching". And as you pointed out it is rather clunky. In VSS it's best to avoid branching alltogether as it will destroy your source history.
Disclaimer: I'm stuck on TFS and I hate it.
My source control structure looks like this:
/dev
/releases
/branches
/experimental-upgrade
I branched from dev to experimental-upgrade and didn't touch it. I then did some more work in dev and merged to experimental-upgrade. Somehow TFS complained that I had changes in both source and target and I had to resolve them. I chose to "Copy item from source branch" for all 5 items.
I check out the experimental-upgrade to a local folder and try to open the main solution file in there. TFS prompts me:
"Projects have recently been added to this solution. Would you like to get them from source control?
If I say yes it does some stuff but ultimately comes back failing to load a handful of the projects. If I say no I get the same result.
Comparing my sln in both branches tells me that they are equal.
Can anyone let me know what I'm doing wrong? This should be a straightforward branch/merge operation...
TIA.
UPDATE:
I noticed that if I click "yes" on the above dialog, the projects are downloaded to the $/ root of source control... (i.e. out of the dev & branches folders)
If I open up the solution in the branch and remove the dead projects and try to re-add them (by right-clicking sln, add existing project, choose project located in the branch folder, it gives me the error...
Cannot load the project c:\sandbox\my_solution\proj1\proj1.csproj, the file has been removed or deleted. The project path I was trying to add is this: c:\sandbox\my_solution\branches\experimental-upgrade\proj1\proj1.csproj
What in the world is pointing these projects outside of their local root? The solution file is identical to the one in the dev branch, and those projects load just fine. I also looked at the vspscc and vssscc files but didn't find anything.
Ideas?
#Ben
You can actually do a full delete in TFS, but it is highly not recommended unless you know what you are doing. You have to do it from the command line with the command tf destroy
tf destroy [/keephistory] itemspec1 [;versionspec]
[itemspec2...itemspecN] [/stopat:versionspec] [/preview]
[/startcleanup] [/noprompt]
Versionspec:
Date/Time Dmm/dd/yyyy
or any .Net Framework-supported format
or any of the date formats of the local machine
Changeset number Cnnnnnn
Label Llabelname
Latest version T
Workspace Wworkspacename;workspaceowner
Just before you do this make sure you try it out with the /preview. Also everybody has their own methodology for branching. Mine is to branch releases, and do all development in the development or root folder. Also it sounded like branching worked fine for you, just the solution file was screwed up, which may be because of a binding issue and the vssss file.
#Nick: No changes have been made to this just yet. I may have to delete it and re-branch (however you really can't fully delete in TFS)
And I have to disagree... branching is absolutely a good practice for experimental changes. Shelving is just temporary storage that will get backed up if I don't want to check in yet. But this needs to be developed while we develop real features.
Without knowing more about your solution setup I can't be sure. But, if you have any project references that could explain it. Because you have the "experimental-upgrade" subfolder under "branches" your relative paths have changed.
This means when VS used to look for your referenced projects in ..\..\project\whatever it now has to look in ..\..\..\project\whatever. Note the extra ..\
To fix this you have to re-add your project references. I haven't found a better way. You can either remove them and re-add them, or go to the properties window and change the path to them, then reload them. Either way, you'll have to redo your references to them from any projects.
Also, check your working folders to make sure that it didn't download any of your projects into the wrong folders. This can happen sometimes...
A couple of things. Are the folder structures the same? Can you delete and readd the project references successfully?
If you create a solution and then manually add all of the projects, does that work. (That may not be feasable - we have solutions with over a hundred projects).
One other thing (and it may be silly) - after you did the branch, did you commit it? I'm wondering if you branched and didn't check it in, and then merged, and then when you tried to check-in then, TFS was mighty confused.
#Kevin:
This means when VS used to look for your referenced projects in ....\project\whatever it now has to look in ......\project\whatever. Note the extra ..\
You may be on to something here, however it doesn't explain why some projects load and others do not. I haven't found a correlation between them yet.
I think I'll try to re-add the projects and see if that works.
#Cory:
I think that's what I'm going to try... I have about 20 projects and 8 or so aren't loading. The folder structures are identical from root... ie: there aren't any references outside of DEV.