On our team, pull requests were often raised with changes similar to the following
(or sometimes they would change back, that is, remove the .git)
This was causing a lot of noise in PRs but we were unable figure out the cause of the change.
We (much) later discovered that this was happening because a member of the team was using AppCode without our knowledge. It is also a known issue:
https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/OC-21297/AppCode-messes-up-the-xcodeproj-project-pbxproj-file-and-introdu
Related
I was working on a static website and decided to change my account as I recently changed my Github username. When I say account, I mean the icon in the bottom left corner of VS Code. In doing so, 10k files were added, and all my extensions disappeared.
The staged files include App Data files that I can't clear.
My Discord is affected. I can't open it as when I do, a message comes up and says:
'update.exe' has been moved or changed. Would you like to delete the shortcut?
Although it's an issue, I essentially have to reinstall it, but the same issue may still arise, which it has as I've tried reinstalling it.
My concern is I feel I may affect other programs by trying to come up with a solution.
I'm posting this question to get help on removing the 10k files that are staged and do not affect program files/app data. When I try to commit these files, I get an error saying,
Git Fatal :pathsepc C\Users.....\getconfig did not match any files
I would think all I need to do is add these files to a gitignore file, but I would need steps if so.
I hope I've explained my problem clearly to get a solution.
Please help.
Staged files
I'm programming in xcode (actually Phone Gap in conjunction with xcode) with git. I'm having a strange issue. When I create two identical branches and try to check out back and fourth between them with out making any changes git is telling me that I need to commit because a change has been made (this same thing is also resulting in merge conflicts). It says the changed file is:
platforms/ios/Butterfli.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcuserdata/benpearce.xcuserdatad/UserInterfaceState.xcuserstate
Can anyone explain what's going on and how to deal with it.
Yes, .xcworkspaces are simply files that Xcode uses to describe the workspace or projects.
IMHO, There's no need to check these files in at all, unless you share settings with other folks in your projects (and in your case, I suppose other machines that have a user named "benpearce").
In fact, you can safely add them to your .gitignore file.
More info can be seen here
Actually I have faced this issue many time during working with SVN. Most of the time I am working with VSS for source control but since last couple of months working with SVN.
We are using tortoise and AnkhSVN with VS 2010.
In our team there are 5-6 people and some of them are working on same file at a time. Now when somebody commit , we have seen that some other developer changes get vanished and Sometime we get some line with version number. This thing get consume lots of time and we have to resolve conflict and all.
Please provide information so we can avoid such issues.
If two developers are working on the same file and make changes to the same are of code, then you have to manually resolve this conflict. There is no way to avoid it, no matter which version control you use.
The version control cannot know what the correct code is, so it requires a human intervention.
There is no way around this, other than preventing the users from working on the same code. this is done in svn by locking the file.
Each developer must svn update before svn commit. Between the update and commit, the developer must do a full, clean build and run all tests to make sure their code still works after merging in all other developer's changes into their copy.
You can set svn:needs-lock on files or folders that need to be locked before making changes, they'll be forced to check for locks. When you will try to edit a file, you will be required to lock it first. And when it is already locked by someone else, they you get an error message, preventing you from making any changes. This can be done in Tortoise SVN in Properties -> Advanced
I've used source controls for a few years (if you count the Source Safe years), but am by no means an expert. We currently are using an older version of Sourcegear Vault. Our team currently uses a check out and lock model. I would rather switch to a update and merge model, but need to convince the other developers.
The reason the developers (not me) set up to work as check out and lock was due to renegade files. Our company works with a consulting firm to do much of our development work. Some years ago, long before my time here, they had the source control set up for update and merge. The consultants went to check in, but encountered a merge error. They then chose to work in a disconnected mode for months. When it was finally time to test the project, bugs galore appeared and it was discovered that the code bases were dramatically different. Weeks of work ended up having to be redone. So they went to check out and lock as the solution.
I don't like check out and lock, because it makes it very difficult for 2 or more people to work in the same project at the same time. Whenever you add a new file of any type or change a file's name, source control checks out the .csproj file. That prevents any other developers from adding/renaming files.
I considered making just the .csproj file as mergable, but the Sourcegear site says that this is a bad idea, because csproj is IDE auto-generated and that you cannot guarantee that two different VS generated files will produce the same code.
My friend (the other developer) tells me that the solution is to immediately check in your project. To me, the problem with this is that I may have a local copy that won't build and it could take time to get a build. It could be hours before I get the build working, which means that during that time, no one else would be able to create and rename files.
I counter that the correct solution is to switch to a mergable model. My answer to the "renegade files" issue is that it was an issue of poor programmer discipline and that you shouldn't use a weaker programmer choice as a fix for poor discipline; instead you should take action to fix the lack of programmer discipline.
So who's right? Is check in - check out a legitimate answer to the renegade file issue? Or does the .csproj issue far too big of a hassle for multiple developers? Or is Sourcegear wrong and that it should be ok to set the csproj file to update and merge?
The problem with update and merge that you guys ran into was rooted in a lack of communication between your group and the consulting group, and a lack of communication from the consulting group to your group as to what the problem was, and not necessarily a problem with the version control method itself. Ideally, the communication problem would need to be resolved first.
I think your technical analysis of the differences between the two version control methodologies is sound, and I agree that update/merge is better. But I think the real problem is in the communication to the people in your group(s), and how that becomes apparent in the use of version control, and whether the people in the groups are onboard/comfortable with the version control process you've selected. Note that as I say this, my own group at work is struggling through the exact same thing, only with Agile/SCRUM instead of VC. It's painful, it's annoying, it's frustrating, but the trick (I think) is in identifying the root problem and fixing it.
I think the solution here is in making sure that (whatever VC method is chosen) is communicated well to everyone, and that's the complicated part - you have to get not just your team on board with a particular VC technique, but also the consulting team. If someone on the consulting team isn't sure of how to perform a merge operation, well, try to train them. The key is to keep the communication open and clear so that problems can be resolved when they appear.
Use a proper source control system (svn, mercurial, git, ...)
If you are going to do a lot of branching, don't use anything less recent than svn 1.6. I'm guessing mercurial/git would be an even better solution, but I don't have too much hands-on-experience using those yet.
If people constantly are working on the same parts of the system, consider the system design. It indicates that each unit has too much responsibility.
Never, ever accept people to offline for more than a day or so. Exceptions to this rule should be extremely rare.
Talk to each other. Let the other developers know what your are working on.
Personally I would avoid having project files in my repository. But then again, I would never ever lock developers to one tool. Instead I would use a build system that generated project files/makefiles/whatever (CMake is my flavor for doing this).
EDIT: I think locking files is fixing the symptoms, not the disease. You will end up having developers doing nothing if this becomes a habit.
I have worked on successful projects with teams of 40+ developers using the update-and-merge model. The thing that makes this method work is frequent merges: the independent workers are continuously updating (merging down) changes from the repository, and everyone is frequently merging up their changes (as soon as they pass basic tests).
Merging frequently tends to mean that each merge is small, which helps a lot. Testing frequently, both on individual codebases and nightly checkouts from the repository, helps hugely.
We are using subversion with no check-in/check-out restrictions on any files in a highly parallel environment. I agree that the renegade files issue is a matter of discipline. Not using merge doesn't solve the underlying problem, what's preventing the developer from copying their own "fixed" copy of code over other people's updates?
Merge is a pita, but that can be minimized by checking in and updating your local copy early and often. I agree with you regarding breaking checkins, they are to be avoided. Updating your local copy with checked in changes on the other hand will force you to merge your changes in properly so that when you finally check-in things go smoothly.
With regards to .csproj files. They are just text, they are indeed mergeable if you spend the time to figure out how the file is structured, there are internal references that need to be maintained.
I don't believe any files that are required to build a project should be excluded from version control. How can you reliably rebuild or trace changes if portions of the project aren't recorded?
I am the development manager of a small company, only 3 programmers.
The projects we work on sometimes take weeks and we employ the big bang, shock and awe implementation style. This means that we have lots of database changes and program changes that have to work perfectly on the night that we implement. We checkout a program, change it and set it aside because implementing it before everything else will make 20 other things blow up. I am for check out and lock. Otherwise, another person might change a few things not realizing that program has had massive changes already. And the merge only helps if you haven't made database changes or changes to other systems not under source control. (Microsoft CRM, basically any packaged software that is extensible through configuration)
IMO, project files such as .csproj should not be part of the versioning system, since they aren't source really.
They also almost certainly are not mergeable.
Like many programmers, I'm prone to periodic fits of "inspiration" wherein I will suddenly See The Light and perform major surgery on my code. Typically, this works out well, but there are times when I discover later that — due to lack of sleep/caffeine or simply an imperfect understanding of the problem — I've done something very foolish.
When this happens, the next step is do reverse the damage. Most easily, this means the undo stack in my editor… unless I closed the file at some point. Version control is next, but if I made changes between my most recent commit (I habitually don't commit code which breaks the build) and the moment of inspiration, they are lost. It wasn't in the repository, so the code never existed.
I'd like set up my work environment in such a way that I needn't worry about this, but I've never come up with a completely satisfactory solution. Ideally:
A new, recoverable version would be created every time I save a file.
Those "auto-saved" versions won't clutter the main repository. (The vast majority of them would be completely useless; I hit Ctrl-S several times a minute.)
The "auto-saved" versions must reside locally so that I can browse through them very quickly. A repository with a 3-second turnaround simply won't do when trying to scan quickly through hundreds of revisions.
Options I've considered:
Just commit to the main repository before making a big change, even if the code may be broken. Cons: when "inspired", I generally don't have the presence of mind for this; breaks the build.
A locally-hosted Subversion repository with auto-versioning enabled, mounted as a "Web Folder". Cons: doesn't play well with working copies of other repositories; mounting proper WebDAV folders in Windows is painful at best.
As with the previous method, but using a branch in the main repository instead and merging to trunk whenever I would normally manually commit. Cons: not all hosted repositories can have auto-versioning enabled; doesn't meet points 2 and 3 above; can't safely reverse-merge from trunk to branch.
Switch to a DVCS and "combine" all my little commits when pushing. Cons: I don't know the first thing about DVCSes; sometimes Subversion is the only tool available; I don't know how to meet point 1 above.
Store working copy on a versioned file system. Cons: do these exist for Windows? If so, Google has failed to show me the way.
Does anyone know of a tool or combination of tools that will let me get what I want? Or have I set myself up with contradictory requirements? (Which I rather strongly suspect.)
Update: After more closely examining the tools I already use (sigh), it turns out that my text editor has a very nice multi-backup feature which meets my needs almost perfectly. It not only has an option for storing all backups in a "hidden" folder (which can then be added to global ignores for VCSes), but allows browsing and even diffing against backups right in the editor.
Problem solved. Thanks for the advice, folks!
Distributed Version Control. (mercurial, git, etc...)
The gist of the story is that there are no checkouts, only clones of a repository.
Your commits are visible only to you until you push it back into the main branch.
Want to do radical experimental change? Clone the repository, do tons of commits on your computer. If it works out, push it back; if not, then just rollback or trash the repo.
Most editors store the last version of your file before the save to a backup file. You could customize that process to append a revision number instead of the normal tilde. You'd then have a copy of the file every time you saved. If that would eat up too much disk space, you could opt for creating diffs for each change and customizing your editor to sequentially apply patches until you get to the revision you want.
if you use Windows Vista, 7 or Windows Server 2003 or newer you could use Shadow Copy. Basically the properties window for your files will have a new tab 'previous version' that keeps track of the previous version of the file.
the service should automatically generate the snapshot, but just to be safe you can run the following command right after your moment of "inspiration"
'vssadmin create shadow /for=c:\My Project\'
it has defiantly saved my ass quite a few times.
Shadow Copy
I think it is time to switch editors. Emacs has a variable version-control, which determines whether Emacs will automatically create multiple backups for a file when saving it, naming them foo.~1~, foo.~2~ etc. Additional variables determine how many backup copies to keep.