I have an online CVS repository that I need to check code into. However, the server is outside my control and is often down.
So, is there a way to set up some sort of local CVS server/proxy such that I can check my code into the local CVS server regularly and have the local CVS server batch commit the changes to the online CVS repo periodically?
The local repository could possibly run some other SCM system, if that was necessary to prevent conflict with CVS. Online commits could possibly be done manually, or via cron. I'm open to suggestions.
I guess that my main concern would be the problems faced in trying to set up some sort of repository 'hierarchy'.
PS: I'm running Linux all along the 'hierarchy'.
Edit: Found a similar item here.
Use git locally, and then git-cvsexportcommit would be my suggestion. There's a blog post that talks about this at http://issaris.blogspot.com/2005/11/cvs-to-git-and-back.html although I'll be the first to admit that the export process isn't as easy to use as perhaps it could be.
I'd recommend running git locally while continuing to use your CVS server when you have a connection to it. Here's a nicely-written article that explains how:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/v1.4.4.4/cvs-migration.html
You can use git as a "frontend" to CVS which will allow to you check-in your changes locally (offline) and then sync them up to the CVS server when your connection is available. There is a bit of a task to setup the environment, but once you get it going the workflow is pretty nice.
See How to export revision history from mercurial or git to cvs? for the setup & workflow.
This doesn't really answer the question, but it sounds like you need a distributed VCS system.
I think you should consider using a distributed source management system such as git or mercurial which support this kind of decentralized source control.
I have never used it, but CVSup may do what you need. As others have mentioned, though, a distributed VCS system like git or mercurial would probably be better.
Related
Is it possible to use (Win)CVS as a local repository? I don't need a multi-user configuration with sharing a repository on a server (I've been using WinCVS for years in a team, and it worked fine for us), but just want to keep track of different versions of my project code locally. Anywhere some good documentation or tutorials? Or are there other options?
Yes, you can create a local CVS repository in any empty directory
on your computer by setting the CVSROOT environment variable
to that directory and running the cvs init command.
The CVS manual describes all the CVS concepts and commands.
I'd suggest not using CVS, which is extremely old, and lacks important features, and instead use a more modern DVCS such as Mercurial or git. That way you don't need to setup any server, and you get atomic commits and better branch handling/merging (among lots of other benefits).
I am looking for a 'local' source control software, I don't need it to be necessarily available on network.. Its meant to be only for personal use..
What I am looking for is something like:
Need it to be cross platform. The biggest problem is, I need the same local repository to be available on both windows and Linux! (Is this even possible? :s ) I dual boot Windows 7 and Ubuntu and have managed to setup workspace that works in both OS without changes, now I need a source control software!
Easy installation, I have never installed one before! :)
And Has eclipse plugin..
I have used VSS for this purpose before, but that is only on Windows!
I looked for Mercurial, but I am not sure if I can use the same repository on both the OS!
Any suggestions are appreciated!
UPDATE: Thanks for your replies.. Yes I do want the same repository to be accessed from different operating systems.. Everyone has suggested an on-line repository but I 'need it to be local'.. Internet is not something I can depend on (I now know git takes care of this..! :)), I would not want version of, say my personal recordings of some home functions tweaked in audacity, to be hosted on-line! Right now, I am trying out git, as a local repository solution..
If you definitely want a repository that's always available on a local filesystem, I'd probably go for Mercurial or Git. Most likely Mercurial, as it has the best windows support (including the TortoiseHg gui), but Git works similarly.
But there's two other issues:
Do you make frequent backups?
What file system type will you use for the shared repository?
In this particular case, I would not trust a single shared filesystem as the best basket to put your eggs in; In each boot environment, I would maintain working repositories separate from the shared one. This would give you some redundancy.
Here's how this would work:
Two repositories U and W, for Ubuntu and Windows respectively, and one shared repository S, accessable frome either boot environment.
Assuming a stable situation, with all three repositories in sync:
Commit any new code to repository U in Ubuntu.
$ hg commit -m 'changes from linux'
Push the changes to S.
$ hg push
Reboot into windows.
...
Pull the latest changesets from S into W
W> hg fetch
Update your code, commit frequently
Push prior to rebooting into linux
W> hg push
Reboot
And repeat step 4, but now from linux
$ hg fetch # performs an hg pull, followed by an update.
Rinse, lather, repeat.
That's said, with both Mercurial and Git, you can synchronise your repositories across the net any time, so I would surely recommend you try that out some time.
And note: the best backup is having a copy of your data on a live file system on another computer, preferably at another location.
I'm pretty sure you can Mercurial, since the whole repository is in .hg folder.
Try TortoiseHG - it's easy to install and use.
Why do you want it to be local? The benefit of source control, is that you can have multiple clients working on the same source, without worrying too much about conflicts etc.
Even though it doesn't really answer your question, this advices might solve your problem:
Just create a project for yourself at https://github.com/ or http://sourceforge.net/ any other free online repository hosting provider. SVN, CVS, GIT all come with excellent IDE integration and clients run on almost all operating systems.
Hope this helps. Regards.
Do you really want to have a duplicate repository on different operating systems? That doesn't make sense to me. What would be the purpose of doing that?
I think you instead want to have a single repository that you can access from any operating system.
In this case, you can just install Subversion (or whatever source control system you prefer) on a server and access it from the operating systems you use. There are plenty of client tools for Mac/Windows/Linux that can talk to subversion repositories, RapidSVN being free and cross-platform for one.
If you don't have your own server, there are plenty of places online that will host Subversion for you.
I have a client who's host doesn't allow shell access. Is there any multi-user revision control system that can work in that situation (on linux)? He's reluctant to switch hosts.
Yes, because you don't do development directly on the production server! The content of your production server is just a view of your source repository, which is kept elsewhere so that work can be done on a separate dev server. This way, a stupid mistake on the dev server won't hose your production system. If that means doing a manual checkout to transfer the files, so be it.
Not the answer you're looking for, but get a better hosting provider. Is there something special your hosting provider is doing for you that makes you want to put up with no shell access, or even not just preinstalling SVN for you? There's a ton of really good hosts for really cheap that will give you SVN already installed, and shell access.
I use Bazaar for exactly this reason. If the server supports ftp or ftps, it supports Bazaar.
http://bazaar.canonical.com/
I've been looking for the same thing, I have a no-shell-access hosting provider with no included source control and don't want to change.
Currently, I'm using git. But instead of using git push to update the remote repository, I use a script and FTP to update the server's copy.
git pull works normally from any client, if the ftp git directory is accessible over http.
git push replacement:
git update-server-info
perl ftpsync.pl -v .git ftp://ftp.example.com/gitrepo/project.git
ftpuser=user#example.com ftppasswd=*
That's using ftpsync, from the Sourceforge ftpsync page. It's an imperfect replacement for git's push, it mirrors the local repo, instead of merging it with the remote, so make sure the local repo is up to date with git pull first.
git-ftp purports to do the same thing. Github's git-ftp page. Probably works better than ftpsync, because it's designed for the purpose, but I haven't tried it.
Sure, SVN can have multiple users and multiple repositories. Depending of course on whether your host is willing to install it. If that doesn't work, maybe you'd consider hosting your version control somewhere else?
Do you mean that you want to store your version control repository on the host and then access it from multiple clients? If yes, then all modern version control systems can work like that.
I just posted this answer on a Mercurial specific question, but it applies here too. I use Mercurial and I found a guide that let me install it with only FTP/control panel access (no shell).
http://javadocs.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/set-up-mercurial-1-5-1-on-a-shared-host-simplified/
Can anyone recommend a good Source Code control (SCC) that works for the mostly disconnected consultant? I'd prefer something that allows one to save into a local repository and then once connected 'syncs' to the server however I've never seen such a feature. Suggestions? [Windows solution is preferred that integrates with standard IDEs the SCCI API].
Any distributed version control service is going to do that. Check out Mercurial or Git.
You may want to look at git.
It lets you commit things locally, and then resync back to another copy. Its very decentralized and it appears to work in windows.
Git may be a good alternative in this case.
From wikipedia: "Git gives each developer a local copy of the entire development history, and changes are copied from one such repository to another. These changes are imported as additional development branches, and can be merged in the same way as a locally developed branch. "
http://git.or.cz/
Assuming you're working with Windows, I'd suggest syncing a local folder using TortoiseSVN on the client side (http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/) to a VisualSVN Server-based repository on the server side (http://www.visualsvn.com/).
All available free.
If you want a full up local repository, it sounds like you might want to look at Mercurial. I haven't used it other than a quick look-see, but it looks very interesting and powerful, and to the best of my knowledge provides a distributed source control process that replicates the repository allowing a disconnected user to still access things that they didn't "checkout" while connected.
For Windows you'll be better off with Mercurial. Especially if you're familiar with Subversion.
Git may be the closet thing to get to what you want.
Bazaar supports this workflow. It is also do able in git, but it's more intuitive in bzr, imho.
Sorry doesnt solve your want to have it merge to multiple repositories but SVN + TortoiseSVN on windows is a good combination. There are also Visual Studio plug ins for SVN if you use VS.
If you need a third party SVN provider i use SVNRepository.com
You need a distributed source code control.
Wikipedia has a good comparison table of source code controls. I'd say pick the distributed source code control that best suits your needs.
You can do this with most systems(cvs, svn, git, and so on).
As for an application that will automatically sync when connected; I would not recommend this. It is better to commit intentionally. Depending on how you use a repository auto check in could break an active copy in your repository, or pass in code that hasn't been tested yet.
A decent client for subversion in windows is TortoiseSVN. http://tortoisesvn.net/
If like GUIs, then check plastic. It works both disconnected (well, actually distributed, using your own server at your laptop) and centralized
I am aware of Capistrano, but it is a bit too heavyweight for me. Personally, I set up two Mercurial repositories, one on the production server and another on my local dev machine. Regularly, when a new feature is ready, I push changes from repository on my local machine to repository on the server, then update on the server. This is a pretty simple and quick way to keep files in sync on several computers, but does not help to update databases.
What is your solution to the problem?
I used to use git push to publish to my web server but lately I've just been using rsync. I try to make my site as agnostic about where it's running as possible (using relative paths, etc) and so far it's worked pretty well. The only challenge is keeping databases in sync, and for that I usually use the production database as the master and make regular backups and imports into my testing database.
Or Fabric, if you prefer Python.
what's heavyweight about capistrano? if you want to sync files then sure rsync is great. but if you're then going to need to do db updates maybe cap isn't so bad ?
I'm assuming you're speaking of Ruby on Rails.
Check out the HowTo wiki:
http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/pages/Howtos#deployment
#Andrew
To use git push to deploy your site you will need to do first set up a remote server in your .git/config file to push to. Then you need to configure a hook that will basically perform a git reset --hard to copy the code you just copied to the repository to the working directory.
I know this is a little vague, but I actually deleted the server-side .git folder once I switched to rsync, so I don't have the exact scripts that I used to make the magic happen. That might be a good candidate for a full question though, so you might get more responses that way.
edit: I know it's been a while, but I eventually found what I was using again:
Deploy a project using Git push