I have been tasked with setting up some type of version control for our development server files location. We current use Oracle's Service Cloud called "Right Now". It holds our dev/staging/prod environments for multiple sites.
Basically I need to VC just the dev files.. and not have to carry a local repo. Is this possible? The reason being for no local is there are just tooo many sites to download all locally. I want to open the files in Sublime from the dev server, make changes, save them, then at some point create a commit regarding the files I changed since the last commit. How can this be done.
I would love to use git, but this requires a local repo as far as I can tell. What about SVN? Could this do it? Your suggestions and resource links are appreciated.
~ WB
Unfortunately I'm not familiar with Oracle's "Right Now" product so I may be missing something important here. Putting this "Right Now" aside, I can say that Apache Subversion can be a good match for your requirements.
With Subversion you don't need to download the whole repository as you need with Git. Subversion's working copy which you need to svn checkout is much less in size than the whole repository in Git because is represents a particular snapshot of the repository's state in time (it does not contain the whole repo history as in Git).
You can checkout only a part of a repository. E.g. if a repository contains multiple projects, you can choose which ones to checkout.
Using sparse directories / shallow checkouts can help you to minimize the size of the working copy by specifying only those modules you require to operate on.
Related
I have several projects which use code from a large set of component libraries. These libraries are under source control.
The libraries repository contains all the libraries used by all my projects and contains multiple versions of multiple libraries. Each library/version pair lives in its own folder. Each of my projects identifies the specific library/version pairs it needs through the folder paths of the references in its project file.
For example $(LibraryPath)\SomeLibrary\v1.1.5
Please note that the libraries repository is only ever added to. No changes are made to stuff already in the repository. Ever.
I have been of course been able to configure my build plan to pull the libraries repository to a libraries subfolder of the working directory. So far so good. However, using the auto branch management feature of Bamboo, this setup means that the libraries repository is cloned for each and every branch in all projects.
Not funny. No, really, not funny...
What I would like to do is:
pull the libraries repository in each build plan
but pull it to a fixed location that is the same for all build plans
it doesn't have to be an absolute path
but it does need to be outside the working directory of the current build plan to avoid unnecessary duplication
Unfortunately the Checkout Directory of the Source Code Checkout configuration task in a Bamboo build plan doesn't allow me to specify either an absolute path or a relative one that goes "up" for one or more levels from the working dir. The hint text explicitly states "(Optional) Specify an alternative sub-directory to which the code will be checked out." And indeed, specifying something like ..\Library gets punished with the message "Checkout to parent directory is forbidden".
I have seen information on the "artifact sharing" feature of Bamboo. This will probably work, but it seems like overkill for what I want to achieve.
What would be the easiest and least complicated way to achieve my goal using Atlassian's Bamboo Continuous Integration?
Out-of-the-box alternatives are welcome, but please don't direct me to any products that require intimate CLI use and/or whose documentation assumes (extensive) knowledge of 'nix and/or Java setup. I am on Windows and spoiled rotten by powerful (G)UI's.
I have the same problem - with a repository weighing in at around 2GB.
I'd like to simply "git checkout myBranch" and "git clean -fxd" instead of cloning every time (which should save a lot of time and disk space). However I also like Bamboo's automatic trigger with new branches showing up.
Like the OP, I'd love to be able to put "..\SharedDirectory" in the "CheckoutDirectory" for the
"Source Code Checkout" task but it won't let me go out above the \JOB_KEY\ folder
One possible solution is: replacing the "Source Code Checkout" task with the two git commands above. That way I can specify exact when/where/how to do the checkout. I think there may be problems with the initial checkout in this case - but once that is solved, all subsequent branches would use the same shared folder, and no more pulling down 2GB every time.
I sometimes work in projects where I do development on two computers which are not connected.
A typical example is creating reports in BIDS.
The workflow looks like this:
I create a project/folder in corporate TFS
Use git-tfs to create local git repository
Develop the report and commit to local repository (and some checkins to tfs)
Clone my repository to the customers computer (using vpn/rdp).
Do some development on the customers computer and push/pull with my repository.
(Sometimes the work starts in customer end)
My question is now what to do when I don't have a vpn or rdp connection. I have a temporary ftp I can use but sometimes USB-stick is the only way.
I have looked into format-patch / am but don't understand how I create the initial repository.
Can I just zip the .git folder and unzip in the other end to get started or is there a better way?
format-patch seem to create one file per commit. Is there an easy way to merge/unmerge these?
(It is just me working in the project so I don't branch / rebase)
Github might work in some cases but I don't want to open the can of worms with storing customers data in the cloud.
Yes, you can just copy .git folders around. Once you have two repositories with a common history, you can use git-format-patch and git-am.
But probably better suited for your case is the use of git-bundle. It creates binary bundles that contain the whole history of a branch from which you can fetch and pull. The example in the reference page shows nicely how to use it.
I am new to SVN and UberSVN on windows. I am using UberSVN 12.04 Free edition (not using any uberapp.)
I would like to know if there is anyway in which I can take the backup of all the repositories at once?
I know that I can take one by one backups for every Repo.
Is there any way that I can take backups and restore it at once and it playes well with Uberportal as well. (shows in the repositories tab)
Some detail will be appreciated as I am not to familar with SVN and its configuration.
You can just copy the entire directory if you want to take a cut of your repo's outside of the svn backup options.
There isn't a way to add multiple repo's at once to uberSVN at the moment, you would need to do these individually.
It is something that has been discussed from time to time, but if it's a feature you deem important I'd recommend raising it via the suggestion area here, then other users can see it and comment etc and we can assess demand.
Switching to GitHub and can't seem to find information on how to do something I used to do with SVN:
First of al I'm a tester so I never commit changes, but I do need to keep a number of local copies of the project each with a small difference to trunk - staging, production, decreased timer values etc
I used to use CornerStone on Mac (just fwiw/don't have it any more), and a single update from SVN would update all my various local 'dependent projects' (all of them the same, apart from one or two lines, usually in a config file). I'd review the inevitable conflicts and almost always reject them, provided the only difference in the conflicting file was my customisation for test purposes, or if there was something new I'd merge it in and leave my staging environment URLs or whatever as they were.
Can I do this sort of thing efficiently with GitHub? (preferably using GitHub's/Xcode's or some other Mac GUI client?)
I did look at the documentation, but can't seem to find anything on this so any help much appreciated/maybe it's kind of unusual to be pulling changes to lots of almost-identical local projects and always be rejecting certain conflicts.. :)
Of course, the ideal solution is to not have configuration data tracked in the repository, or at least make it possible to override via some untracked file.
However, there's no problem with what you want to do in git. You just locally make multiple clones of your GitHub repository. In each, you can make your changes specific to that local copy, and then commit them. Then, when you want to update from the latest version of GitHub, make sure that you pull with:
git pull --rebase
... which will fetch the latest version from the server, and then try to reapply your commits with local changes on top of them. Unless the same parts of the files that you've committed changes to have also been modified in the new commits on GitHub, you shouldn't even have conflicts to resolve.
If you always pull like this, then the commit graph (history) of your project will always be the same as the remote, but with any of your local changes as the most recent commits on top of the remote history.
(I would hope that the GUI clients that you are using have an option to rebase on pulling new changes. Otherwise you can set this to happen automatically with the config option branch.<name>.rebase, where <name> is the name of your local branch.)
Just moved to subversion...from visual studio. I love it already! Can someone briefly explain
Repository
Branches
Tags
Trunk
Do I need to create a new repository for every project? Or a new trunk?
Thanks
You don't need a separate repository, but you can if you want. I recommend reading the book at http://svnbook.red-bean.com/. Grab the pdf version or whatever. It doesn't take too long, and it explains some things pretty well. I read it, and found that I'm glad I did.
Remember that subversion is just a fancy filesystem that supports versioning. Think of a repository as a "drive root" like "C:/".
Each project gets a trunk, tags and branches directory. All of your day to day work happens in the trunk. Experimental code is done in a branch and then merged back into the trunk at a later date. Tags are for when you release the software. These are not to be edited. When you release the software, you create a tag with a unique name based on what is currently in the trunk.
I can't say whether or not you need a separate repository for each project, there are pros and cons. This blog posting details them:
Simplified administration. One set of hooks to deploy. One repository
to backup. etc.
Branch/tag flexibility. With the code all in one repository it makes it
easier to create a branch or tag
involving multiple projects.
Move code easily. Perhaps you want to take a section of code from
one project and use it in another, or
turn it into a library for several
projects. It is easy to move the code
within the same repository and retain
the history of the code in the
process.
Here are some of the drawbacks to the
single repository approach, advantages
to the multiple repository approach.
Size. It might be easier to deal with many smaller repositories than
one large one. For example, if you
retire a project you can just archive
the repository to media and remove it
from the disk and free up the storage.
Maybe you need to dump/load a
repository for some reason, such as to
take advantage of a new Subversion
feature. This is easier to do and with
less impact if it is a smaller
repository. Even if you eventually
want to do it to all of your
repositories, it will have less impact
to do them one at a time, assuming
there is not a pressing need to do
them all at once.
Global revision number. Even though this should not be an issue,
some people perceive it to be one and
do not like to see the revision number
advance on the repository and for
inactive projects to have large gaps
in their revision history.
Access control. While Subversion's authz mechanism allows
you to restrict access as needed to
parts of the repository, it is still
easier to do this at the repository
level. If you have a project that only
a select few individuals should
access, this is easier to do with a
single repository for that project.
Administrative flexibility. If you have multiple repositories, then
it is easier to implement different
hook scripts based on the needs of the
repository/projects. If you want
uniform hook scripts, then a single
repository might be better, but if
each project wants its own commit
email style then it is easier to have
those projects in separate
repositories
I agree, read the svnbook. It's a great resource.
Do I need to create a new repository for every project? Or a new trunk?
Kevin covered the single/multiple repository trade-offs pretty well. When we started with svn, we used one repository for all of our development projects. It worked well and had all the advantages mentioned. However, as the repository got bigger it got more difficult to administer because of the size of the dump file and resulting issues during backup. It also became an issue that projects couldn't easily be archived out of the repository - it's certainly possible but it requires dumping and pulling out projects from the repository. They aren't issues you can't get around but it's something to keep in mind.
Repository
Branches
Tags
Trunk
Branches, tags and the trunk are just copies of your files contained in the repository. It allows you to segregate and check-mark your files at whatever time you feel appropriate (usually at a release or a feature branch).
An important thing to keep in mind about branches, tags and trunk is that they just conventions in svn. There is no functional difference between the three locations, they are just an accepted usage model and they can be changed or organized differently if you have a good reason. I'm not recommending that you organize differently but you'll find that svn is very flexible because there isn't really a forced organizational structure other than convention.
Depending on how many projects you decide to have in your repository, you may organize differently.
You can have the subdirectories with projects under it:
\repo
\branches
\...
\tags
\...
\trunk
\..
or you can have projects contain the subdirectories:
\repo
\Project1
\branches
\tags
\trunk
\Project2
\branches
\tags
\trunk
There are trade-offs that are covered in the svnbook. The first method is usually used if you only have one project per repository and the second if there is more than one project in your repository.
The nice thing is that you can just start using svn and then figure out what you prefer. You should have some sort of organization but, with cheap copies, you can always re-arrange the folders as your situation or workflow changes.
An important thing to remember with SVN, compared to other version control systems like CVS or Git, is that SVN doesn't really have a concept or branching or tagging. As far as SVN is concerned it's all just a bunch of folders and files. So while you'll see a lot of people using the branches/tags/trunk setup, this is not required and you are able to deviate from this if you so choose.
Generally speaking 'trunk' is where you keep your active development going. So this is where you do all your commits. Whether or not you checkout trunk or use tags/branches instead is entirely up to you.
Branches, as I've used them, are usually for when you need to do large changes to your application but don't want them in trunk because you want to be able to continue developing against trunk without deploying your other changes. In this case you may have something like
\repo
\trunk
\branches
\version_two
In this case you can develop in both trunk and version_two separately and, assuming your live site is a checkout of trunk, you don't need to worry about 'accidentally' breaking your live site with your other changes. And when those changes are done and ready you just merge them back into trunk whenever you want.
Tags can be used similarly to branches, in that instead of checking out trunk and just using 'svn up' to update your repository you instead of several tags, each representing one release. So your repo may look something like
/repo
/trunk
/branch
/version_one
/version_two
/tags
/1.0.0
/1.0.1
/1.1.0
In this case the general idea is that when you're ready to do a deploy you do an
svn copy
To copy trunk over to a tag (in this case the next one could be 1.1.1, 1.2.0, 2.0.0, etc). How you name your tags it entirely up to you though and, again, depends on your project and requirements. With this route instead of doing a regular 'svn up' you would have to do an svn switch. So you have to deploy with
svn switch https://svn.yourrepo.com/repo/tags/1.1.0
The switch will automatically do updates, adds and deletes on the appropriate files.
When it comes to one repo for many projects or separate repos for each one I am an advocate of one repo per project. It provides the additional benefits of easily managing access to it. But most importantly it means that each project has a separate commit history and separate logs. This m
Reading your tags I see you started using VisualSVN instead of your old VSS system. (Your question says you stopped using Visual Studio.. which makes VisualSVN a strange choice).
One of the major differences between SourceSafe and VSS is that you can choose different tools to access the same repository (and you can switch every time you like as they all share the same workingcopy).
E.g.:
TortoiseSVN for Explorer integration.
The normal subversion client for scripts.
VisualSVN as Visual Studio frontend for TortoiseSVN
AnkhSVN as real SCC (VAPI) package in Visual Studio.