Say a development team includes (or makes use of) graphic artists who create all the images that go into a product. Such things include icons, bitmaps, window backgrounds, button images, animations, etc.
Obviously, everything needed to build a piece of software should be under some form of version control. But most version control systems for developers are designed primarily for text-based information. Should the graphics people use the same version-control system and repository that the coders do? If not, what should they use, and what is the best way to keep everything synchronized?
Yes, having art assets in version control is very useful. You get the ability to track history, roll back changes, and you have a single source to do backups with. Keep in mind that art assets are MUCH larger so your server needs to have lots of disk space & network bandwidth.
I've had success with using perforce on very large projects (+100 GB), however we had to wrap access to the version control server with something a little more artist friendly.
I've heard some good things about Alienbrain as well, it does seem to have a very slick UI.
GitHub recently introduced "image view modes", take a look: https://github.com/blog/817-behold-image-view-modes.
We, too, just put the binaries in source control. We use Git, but it would apply just as well to Subversion.
One suggestion I have is to use SVGs where possible, because you can see actual differences. With binaries (most other image formats), the best you can get is a version history.
A lot of the graphics type people will want something more sophisticated than subversion. While it's good for version control, they will want a content management system that allows cross-referencing of assets, tagging, thumbnails and that sort of thing (as well as versioning).
TortoiseSVN can show image revisions side-by-side, which is really useful. I've used it with different teams with a great degree of success. The artists loved having the ability to roll back things (after they got used to the concepts). It does take a lot of space, though.
Interesting question. I don't have a bunch of experience working directly with designers on a project. When I have, it's been through a contractual sort of agreement where they "delivered" a design. I have done some of my own design work for both web sites and desktop applications, and though I have not used source control in the past, I am in the process of implementing SVN for my own use as I am starting to do some paid freelance work. I intend to utilize version/source control precisely the way I would with source code. It just becomes another folder in the project trunk. The way I have worked without source control is to create an assets folder in which all media files that are equivalents of source code reside. I like to think of Photoshop PSD's as graphics source code while the JPEG output for a web site or otherwise is the compiled version.
In the case of working with designers, which is a distinct possibility I face in the near future, I'd like to make an attempt to have them "check-in" their different versions of their source files on a regular basis. I'll be curious to read what others with some experience will say in response to this.
We use subversion. Just place a folder under /trunk/docs for comps and have designers check out and commit to that folder. Works like a champ.
#lomaxx TortoiseSVN includes a program called TortoiseIDiff which looks to be a diff for images. I haven't used it but looks intriguing.
I would definitely put the graphics under version control. The diff might not be very useful from within a diff tool like diffmerge, but you can still checkout two versions of the graphic and view them side by side to see the differences.
I don't see any reason why the resultant graphics shouldn't be kept in the same version control system that the coders use. However, when you're creating graphics using PSD files or PDN files you might want to create a seperate repository for those as they have a different context to the actual end jpeg or gif that is produced and deployed with the developed application.
In my opinion Pixelapse combined with a backup solution is the best version control software for graphics that I've found thus far. It supports adobe files and a bunch of normal raster images. It has version by version preview. It autosaves when the files update(on save). It works like dropbox but have a great web interface.
You can use it in teams and share projects to different people. It also support infinite reviewers which is great for design agencies. And if you want you can publicly collaborate on projects that are "open".
Unfortunately you can't have a local pixelapse server, so for backup my current setup is that I have the Pixelapse folder(like a dropbox folder) inside a git repo for snapshot creation.
With respect to diff and merging, I think the version control is more critical for graphics and media elements. If you think about it, most designers are going to be the sole owners of a file -- at least in the case of graphics -- or at least I would think that'd be the case. I'd be curious to hear from a designer.
#Damian - Good point about the tagging and cross referencing. That's true; while I haven't working with many designers on a software development project, I have worked for a company that had a design department and know that this is an issue. Designers are still (perpetually) looking for the perfect system to handle this sort of thing. I think this is more suited to a design department for shared access, searching and versioning, etc to all assets -- where there is a business incentive to not reinvent the wheel wherever/whenever possible. I don't think it would apply for a project-oriented manner as tagging and cross referencing wouldn't be quite as applicable.
We keep the binary files and images in revision control, using Perforce. It's great!
We keep a lot of art assets, and it scales well for lots of large files. It recognizes binary files, the ones that can't be diffed, and stores them as full file copies in the back end.
It has P4V (cross-platform visual browser), and a thumbnail system so image files can be seen in the browser.
You might want to take a look at Boar: "Simple version control and backup for photos, videos and other binary files". It can handle binary files of any size. http://code.google.com/p/boar/
A free and slightly wonky solution is Adobe version Cue its comes with the Adobe Suites up to CS4 and is easy to install and maintain. Offers user level control and is artist friendly. Adobe has discontinued support though for it which is a shame. Adobe Bridge acts as the client between the user and the Version Cue server. If used properly its an inexpensive solution to version control. I use CS3 version cue with CS3 Bridge. Works great for small teams.
Related
Anyone out there using LiveCode in a multi developer project?
Either way, can someone recommend a good source control system / plugin to use?
We've looked at MagicCarpet but since it is no longer developed we wish to use something else.
Thanks
I'm working on a solution to this problem by exporting the stack file as a structured directory of script, json and image files which will diff and merge nicely in most VCS. It is not yet available but the intention is it will be open source. My goal is to demonstrate it at the RunRevLive conference in May.
Here's the repo for lcVCS https://github.com/montegoulding/lcVCS
I have put a git library stack on revOnline (libVersionControl) that exports to structured xml files that git can handle. It works as far as it goes, but I have hopes that Monte's solution will supersede this effort.
revOnline link to stack
Yes, our team has been using LiveCode with multiple developers. Since the Livecode community is still young, acquiring good source control tools can be a challenge. Our solution has been to break code into modules (stack files). When there are updates to merge into the main codebase, we clone our existing codebase, and merge code changes manually using line by line compare in a text editor. This is not a fun process, but is much less painful than it sounds.
If I were to redesign the system, we would simply use Git (Github.com etc.). There is no reason this would not work with Livecode stacks.
We use LiveCode in a small team with Subversion.
We don't have a perfect solution, but it is very lightweight; we all use a custom extension to the standard toolbar, which among other things has a 'save+backup' button. When we started using it with Subversion, we added code to this button which saves an XML sidecar file for the stack. The file contains all the scripts, custom properties, and optionally fields (controlled by user property in each stack). In our case almost all of our work is in scripts, so this works for us.
The effect is that each time we commit to SVN, we're always committing two files, the LiveCode stack and the accompanying sidecar file - the latter works fine for diffing etc.
Where this lets us down is that we don't have any solution for merging. If we were working on larger systems more actively, we'd also modify I expect look to modify the sidecar format into a complete folder of files. For now however this makes the situation workable (and it takes no noticeable time to generate the sidecar file).
Happy to share code if that was useful.
I know of a tool thats being worked on that is going to really help in this regard. When he showed it to me it looked very functional already. But I'm not sure when he will share it with the community.
So the point is, its just a matter of time before people's stuff comes together to make a turn key solution for this.
Given a project I'm about to start there will be documentation produced.
What is the best practice for this?
Should the documents live with the code and assets or should there be a separate documentation store?
Edit
I'd like a wiki but I will need to print the documents etc... It's a university project.
It really depends on your team. Where I work, we keep documentation in a wiki which is linked in with our team website. For the purposes of shipping documentation, the wiki can be exported and we run it through a parser that "fancifies" the look and feel of the documentation for customer purposes.
Storing the documentation with the code (typically in your source repository) is not a bad idea. Just make sure to keep them separated. For example, keep a docs folder which is on the same level with your src folder in your repository. This way, you can quickly ship the current documentation, you can easily track revisions, and anybody new to the project can immediately jump in without having to go to multiple locations for information.
Storing it in source control is fine.
This is an interesting question -- basically, what others are saying is right about generated documentation, source files and templates/etc. should be stored in source control and generated during your build process.
As far as requirements/specs/etc. documentation, I have worked both ways, and I very much prefer using SharePoint or a Wiki/document portal that is designed for document sharing/versioning. The reason is, most non-developer folks aren't comfortable working with source control systems, and you don't gain any of the advantages of intelligent merging if you are using a binary format like Word. Plus it's nice to have internet-based access so you can reference and work on the docs in a distributed team without people having to install extra software.
Here's a 2017 summary of the options and my experience:
(extreme 1) Completely external (e.g. a wiki, Google Docs, LaTeX, MS Word, MS Onedrive)
People aren't bothered about keeping it up to date (half of them don't even know where to find the page that needs updating since it's so out of the trenches).
wiki platforms are “captive user interfaces” - your data gets stored in their proprietary schemas and is not easy to examine with a simple text editor (Confluence is even worse in that you have no access to the plaintext content at all anymore)
(extreme 2) Completely internal (e.g. javadoc)
pollutes the source code, and is usually too low level to be of any use. Well-written source code is still the best form of low level documentation.
However, I feel package-info.java files are underutilized.
(balance) Colocated documentation (e.g. README.md)
A good half way solution, with the benefits of version control. If a single README.md file is not enough, consider a doc/ folder. The only drawback of this I've seen is whether to source control helpful graphics (e.g. png files) and risk bloating the repo.
One interesting way to avoid this problem is to use plaintext diagram tools (I find Grapheasy and Text Diagram to be a breath of fresh air).
plaintext can be easily read even if your rendering engine changes as the years go by.
Github's success is in no small part thanks to its README.md located in the root of the project.
One tiny disadvantage of this approach though is that your continuous integration system will trigger a new build each time you make edits to the README.md file.
If you are writing versioned user documentation associated with each release of the product, then it makes sense to put the documentation in source control along with its associated product release.
If you are writing internal developer documentation, use automated internal source code documentation (javadoc, doxygen, .net annotations, etc) for source level documentation and a project wiki for design level documentation.
I think most of us in the industry are not really following best-practices and it of course also depends a lot on your situation.
In an agile environment where you would have a very iterative process of release, you will want to "travel light". In this particular case, Jason's suggestion of a separate Wiki really works great.
In a water-fall/big bang model, you will have a better opportunity to have a decent documentation update with each new release. Also you will need to clearly document what version of the requirements was agreed on and have loads of documentation for every tiny change you do to requirements (due to the effects it has on subsequent stages). Often if the documentation can live together with the version controlled source code it is the best.
Are you using any sort of auto-documentation or is it completely manual? Assuming that you are using an auto-documentation system, the documentation is more or less generated on the fly, and would be part of the code itself.
To me, (assuming that it's possible with whatever code you are using), this would be the preferred method of handling it, as you wouldn't need to maintain the documentation source at all.
What is the best version control system to implement with PowerBuilder 11.5?
If you have examples of how you have did branching/trunk/tags that would be awesome. We have tried to wrap our heads around it a few times and always run into problems because we use shared libraries such as PFC/PFE in multiple applications.
Right now we are only using PBNative, and it sucks.
The Agent SVN is a MS-SCCI Subversion plug-in works with PowerBuilder.
Here is a link that describes how to setup Agent SVN to work with PowerBuilder and Subversion.
We currently use Perforce and it's P4SCC plugin, which works very well. In fact, I'm sure I read somewhere that the guys at Sybase who write PowerBuilder, actually use Perforce themselves.
So, to be fair, let's start out by saying that while you're asking about version control, PBNative is source control. If you compare something that is intended to have more features than just keep two developers from editing the same piece of source, then yes, PBNative will suck. The Madone SL may be an incredible bicycle, but if you're trying to take a couple of laps around an Indy track, it will suck.
"Best" is a pretty subjective word. There are lots of features available in version control and configuration management tools. You can get tons of features, but you'll pay through the nose. StarTeam has some nice features like being able to trace a client change request or bug report all the way through to the changed code, and being able to link in a customized diff tool (which is particularly useful in PB). Then again, if cost is your key criteria rather than features, there are lots of free options that will get the job done. As long as the tool supports the Microsoft SCC interface, you should be OK.
There is a relatively active NNTP newsgroup that focuses on source control with PowerBuilder, which you can also access via the web. You can probably find some already-posted opinions there.
Many years ago I used Starteam to control PB applications. PowerBuilder needless to say is an outdated bear, and it has to export each and every object from its "libraries" into source control.
Currently our legacy PB apps have its libraries saved whole into Subversion, without any support for diff's etc.
We use Visual SourceSafe. We don't use PFC, but we do have libraries that are shared among several projects. Till now, each project was developed separately from the others, and so the shared libraries were duplicated. To have them synchronized, they were all shared at the VSS level. Lately we've reorganized our sources so all projects are near each other, and there's only one instance of the shared libraries.
VSS is definitively not the best source control system, to say the least, but it integrates into PB without the need of any bridges. PB has an inherent problem working with source control, so it probably won't make a very difference working with one instead of the other (at least from the PB point of view).
Now, on a personal note, I'd like to say PB 11.5 is a piece of sh*t. It constantly crashes, full of unbelievable UI nuisance and just brings productivity to its knees. It's probably the worst IDE ever created. Stay away if possible.
FYI: The new PB12 (PB.NET) will integrate with SCC systems so you can easily choose which source control system that you want to use. Since we basically have dropped PBLs (they are now directories) files can be checked in/out individually - even with a plain vanilla editor since files are now normal (unicode) text files.
StarTeam integrates so beautifully with the PB IDE. I used that combination at my previous company (PB9 and ST5.x) for several years. You should be managing your code at the object level - don't log the entire PBL into ST...
If you're having problems with that setup, hit me up offline. phoran at sybase dot com.
We use Merant Version Manager for older projects and TFS for newer work. The only issue we have is that TFS does not support keyword expansion and changing the 'read the flowerbox comments' attitude people have. Some folks are nervous about losing the inline versioning history.
We use StarTeam and have been very pleased with it. It combines bug tracking with version control. Unfortunately though we don't store our files on the object level. We just store the PBL files directly in source control. Anything that supports the SCC interface theoretically should work correctly in PowerBuilder.
PB9: We used PVCS but had stability problems with pbl corruption and also problems co-existing with later versions of Crystal Reports (dll conflict) so now we use PB9 with Dynamsoft's Source Anywhere Standalone. This system is more primitive; it is missing the more advanced features for promotion levels and for pulling out an older milestone version of all objects to make a patch build.
What we are looking for now is something which will allow more advanced "change management", to support promotion levels at the change level (rather than at the object level). Would it be better to use perforce, starteam, or (harvest change manager + HarPB), or something else? Any advice on these combinations would be greatly appreciated.
You can always use Plastic SCM with PowerBuilder through SCC. Plastic is pretty advanced in terms of graphics, tools, replica and so on, so it's always a good choice to keep in mind.
I'm developing a mobile phone application that targets a lot of mobile devices based on the capabilities they offer. There would be a base feature set which all phones are expected to support and then there would be additional features that would depend on specific set of phones.
How do I manage such a code base in terms of a version control system?
I have experience with CVS and VSS but both don't quite fit into my needs for this kind of an application. The last thing I would want to do is branch the code for each of these device sets.
Let me make this a bit more clear with the help of an example. Lets say I'm developing a J2ME application using MIDP 2.0. This is the base feature set that I would expect all phones supporting MIDP 2.0 to have. On top of this I would extend this application for specific sets of phones using their SDK's. For eg. Nokia S40, Nokia S60, Sony Ericsson, Blackberry etc. All these provide additional functionalities which lets you build more on top of your base application and most of the times these would affect your whole code base from UI to core logic.
One way to achieve this is to use a combination of a build system with preprocessor flags and trying to separate the differences enough to not have too many dependencies. This can get quite complicated at times. I am wondering if there is an easier way to handle this using a smart source control system....
I would look at Subversion's svn:externals.
With svn 1.5 you can use relative references for directories, and svn 1.6 supports file-based externals.
For example a structure like,
/Phone1/Base
/Phone1/Feature1
/Phone1/Feature2
/Phone2/Base
/Phone2/Feature1
/Phone2/Feature3
Would be easily acheived using svn:externals.
In Subversion, your repository structure is very flexible, here is one way (of many) you could lay that out:
trunk/Features/Base
trunk/Features/Feature1
trunk/Features/Feature2
trunk/Features/Feature2
trunk/Phones/Phone1 (with svn:externals to Base, Feature1, ...)
trunk/Phones/Phone2 (with svn:externals to Base, Feature3, ...)
One hint though: Make sure that you use a specific Subversion revision for each external reference, it may not seem important when starting out, but 6 months down the track it will :)
I like Subversion for projects which don't have a lot of developers on it. From your problem statement, to me it sounds like you should be able to acheive what you want with a good build system. So I don't think the source control itself would make much a difference. But I may be misunderstanding your problem.
Sayed Ibrahim Hashimi
My Book: Inside the Microsoft Build Engine : Using MSBuild and Team Foundation Build
I don't think VCS will solve your problem.
Your best bet maybe to abstract out the phone specific functionality as much as possible and/or go with a plugin type model.
I've only had experience with Subversion, CVS, Starteam, and VSS. Branches are a pain no matter what... especially if you have multiple active branches. You won't get around doing constant merges , branch comparisons, and trying to track if you've made a change to all branches.
If you organize your code into some core modules and some phone-specific modules which depend on the core modules then it doesn't really matter which VCS you use. I would recommend a decentralized VCS anyway (Mercurial, Bazaar, Git).
You could consider describing how do you want to achieve what you want (different app versions with different feature sets) to get a more reasonable advice
If you use Perforce, you can use different mappings between the depot and your workspaces and do something like:
depot/
common/
platform1/
someportedfile
platform2/
someportedfile
and have it mapped in your workspace to:
platform1/
someportedfile
common/
platform2/
somtportedfile
common/
I'm trying to implement a version control system, but as most of us know designers don't feel comfortable with version control systems. I'm looking for a solution mostly for our designers using Photoshop, Flash and other design tools.
It's not a big deal to use a version control system, like VSS 2005, with our frontend and backend coders, but we have some serious problems with our designers. They mostly refuse to use version control systems, and they are right at some points, mostly on productivity level. They mostly work on more than one file, and on more than one application like Photoshop and Flash.
I don't know if version controlling is the right answer or not. Maybe we have to implement a backup system, but there has to be a versioning system, I think. I and our designers are very tired of doing the same thing or going back to the previous designs over and over again.
It would be wonderful to know how digital agencies overcome this problem. If version controlling is the answer, please share your tips on how to make designers comfortable with version controlling.
EDIT 1: Maybe it would be great to have a solution like Dropbox, as it doesn't disturb you with check-ins/check-outs. All you have to do is to open up a file, work on it and save it, the rest is handled by Dropbox.
EDIT 2: We are on Windows, so no chance to implement anything other than Windows support :(
Thanks...
I haven't actually ever done this with graphic designers, but is it possible that Subversion's WebDAV support might work for them? You can mount a WebDAV share as a drive under Mac OS X and Windows XP & Vista, I believe. Each save becomes a new revision in the repository.
And as for your second, hidden question: Yes, you do need to implement a backup system. At least if you value your data.
Adobe has it's own version control, Version Cue, which is bundled with the Creative Suite package. http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/versioncue/sdk_overview/ Apparently, Eclipse can plug into this. I haven't tried it extensively, but I know it integrates nicely into the file dialog in Creative Suite.
NOTE: Version Cue has been discontinued by adobe after the release of CS5:
http://www.adobe.com/products/adobedrive/
Adobe Version Cue maybe?
You might want to try subversion because there are plugins for windows explorer and max OS X finder. integration with the filesystem has been a big help for me on projects where non-developers had to work with source control. This includes projects that have had designers.
Another key thing that helped was having a good directory structure for the files the designers and other non-developers worked with.
I just came accross ConceptShare and it's pretty great...it's not automated version control but you could use it for that and it's a great way to collect and document feedback.
You can try Subversion (installed on a local or remote server) plus Adobe Creative Suite plug-in that would face the designers - Pixelnovel Timeline
It's compact, has previews of all versions (submitted via the plug-in), works for Photoshop, Illustrator & InDesign.
If developers also use Subversion, everything (code & design) can be kept in one place.
Instead of trying to integrate a version control system with lots of applications on different operating systems, you might want to have a look at copy-on-write file systems such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext3cow. That way your designers won't even notice a difference; all they will have to do is save their work to a network share on a linux/samba server using ext3cow.
I'm both a designer and coder. I usually version control code (text data) with git, and simply use "save as" with a version name for graphics (binary data). And I run Apple's Time Machine on top of all that, for safety.
To me, version control on graphic files would just be a burden. I'd have to roll back to see changes, and you wouldn't even get one of the great features of version control: see the changes you did in a specific commit just by looking at diffs. The log feature is nice though, to see how you progressed in time, and notes, but to me personally it's not worth it.
Take a look at Perforce - it has a plugin and tools that allow you to use it from within designer tools such as Photoshop, its also super fast and integrates well with Visual Studio - runs on Windows as well as Linux
What I did once was create a "Snapshot" shortcut on the desktop that added and committed everything from a specific directory.
If every designer commits to their own branch (trivial with a DVCS but easy with SVN too) there will be no conflicts, and the cross-branch merging can be done at intervals by someone who isn't afraid of it.
I've been having my eyes on GridIron's Flow for a while now. It looks like a competent version control suite that has some neat asset management features such as visualization on graphics between versions and relationships between different assets. Flow has support for handling files for adobe photoshop, illustrator, flash etc. However as of now (early january) GridIron hasn't released Flow yet other than having to announce the beta program.
Most digital agencies that I know of that mainly do web development use Subversion for version control. To avoid conflicts on image files an artist will lock the files he or she will work on. That way, another artist won't do the mistake of overwriting changes. This requires some coordination among artists and devs so that noone steps on anyone shoes. Also, if someone forgets to unlock, there is the possibility to break locks.
If you're into distributed version control you might want to take a look at Mercurial as it has good support for Windows and has some neat cheat sheets. The Ruby kids are using git but is rather lacking in Windows.
Before using version control with artists, at least make sure they know the basics of version control and let them fool around with it in a sandbox. Also make sure they've set up some basic rules of conduct when collaborating with each other and interacting through version control (i.e. ways to make sure they don't destroy each others works or step on each others toes).