We are working on Joomla3.9 project, have different environments and are using git as vcs. So every developer works on is own branch. It would be nice to have a database compare function like in TYPO3 or Contao (see the database differences after updating the project and apply the database changes just by one click). Or like the laravel migration system.
Any developer should easily update his own lokal database after database changes where made due an extension update via backend or by another developer. And of course the staging or live system must be updated easily too. We don't want to execute sql-scripts with the changes in phpMyAdmin.
We have tried https://dbv.vizuina.com/ . This is not the 100% solution. Like there is no cli support to start the migration process by an update script on the server.
Does anyone have a solution or knows an extension that can solve this problem? Or can this be handled with core Joomla functions (maybe with a little adjustment)?
So far, I've seen three possibilities to execute modifications to one ore many extension tables
1: Use the extension - revision control in the schema table. So add a new sql-file with an increased version number compared to the version number in the schema-table for this extension. Increase also the version in the manifest.xml and zip the extension again.
Reinstall the extension via extension->manage->install. So the new sql-file with the increased version number will be executed.
2: like the point above, but install the extension via joomla update mechanism (update server).
3.: create a new sql-file in sql/folder of the extension. No version name is needed for the new file, just update.sql oder another filename. Execute this script in script.php in update()-method, after the extension is installed (in this case it's an update) again.
The third possibility might be interesting. It should be possible to trigger the update()-method with a cli command / function, so that the method can be triggered via a script on the server.
But how can I get the info, which update-scripts have already been executed? Let's say I have 3 update files in sql-folder. update-1.sql, update-2.sql and update-3.sql.
update-1.sql has already been executed. So I don't want to execute this sql-file again - only the other two.
The schema-table is only used with the first two options. Do I have the info somewhere or must I manage the infos which update-scripts have been executed myself?
The answer related to versioning database for extensions depends on whether these extensions are tightly coupled to the application or need to be reusable to other applications also.
The latter case normally means that each extension accesses its own custom tables, in which case you should keep separate versioning for the database than for the extensions.
App version history can be kept in a db_version table. Then an insert statement is added at the end of each update script (adding an incremental version number). e.g.
insert into db_version(version,author,description) values(003,'Verna.Collins', 'removing obsolete column');
Provided that you need to apply data migration on extensions also, you need to maintain a db_version_extensions table which keeps version history for each of the extensions separately. e.g.
'001' 'extension1','Mandy.Aguilar','initial version'
'002' 'extension1','Mandy.Aguilar','adding extra column'
'001' 'extension2','Edna.Potter','initial version'
'002' 'extension2','Elvira.Townsend','dropping unused table'
..etc
Each extension zip should keep initial creation script and all sql-update files(which should normally not interfere with the rest of the app tables).
After pull it will be relatively easy to execute all the scripts with filename version greater than the last version number written in the database. This should be done for the app and for each extension separately.
Now if the extensions are tightly coupled to the app, it means that they might be using/updating tables of the app. For extensions of this type, you can add the updates as part of the application updates. These extensions could even be developed at the same repo, and be kept as directories instead of zip files.
Not sure if joomla supports any tools for automating the process of performing incremental db updates, but a nice tool is flyway, with ports for command-line, maven and graddle. See: how does flyway work
I have a project and I want to work with another developer on the same project. I'm looking for a way to share the project between us, so that we can work on it parallel at the same time. I need it to work locally, without using an internet connection.
I'm a part of a 2-3 iOS developers team so I can give you a few tips from my experience on collaborating (we use git, I'm assuming you know a bit about. if not, read this), after you get the hang of it here are my thoughts -
Try to make as little change as you can to your project pbx file simultaneity, It'll result in a conflict almost every time
Don't be scared of branches, we're using them all the time, if you two are planning to work on different features of the same product try to do it in different branches
We had serious problems with storyboards and collaboration - like pbx their content change even on open and merging those changes can be very tiring
You already have Git available to you inside of XCode. You can share your code and work on it on the same time using "branching" mechanisms.
Bitbucket has excellent FREE private mode where you and 5 other people can share a Git repository. There are easy-to-use tutorials available on their site. I would highly suggest using that.
I would steer away from using SVN, there are better tools for what you are looking for.
Why don't you use SVN ?
You can configure SVN in Xcode for doing this. Also you can use Git.
Check:
Configuring Xcode to use subversion
Git Source Control With Xcode
Check this question How to set up an SCM in Xcode?.
There you will get links about how to setup SCM for xcode
I am searching since at least 29 years ;-) but I don't find anything, that would match my understanding of a good workflow.
Isn't there any tool, to do some versioning with shared-hosting ftp-servers for web-development on a mac?
This is my case: I am php-coder, just have written a bigger application with Symfony. now, as the 1.0 is final and released, I have setup a dev release, where I can test and develop - but each time I want to publish a new release, I have to look for all files, that changed since the last update and upload them by hand or just update everything (7000+files...).
There MUST be anyone who had this problem and wrote a versioning tool for mac or a versioning and deployment plugin for eclipse or whatever for testing AND publishing on different ftp-servers (and publishing cannot be github or whatever, because its all about shared-hosting) - does anyone know one?
Thanks so much!
At last, I found myself beginning to use bitbucket. Didn't like git, so I use mercurial for now. Works fine, as I can submit everything once I finished an update and sync changed files to the production environment.
SVN is quite cool... :-)
Thanks for your thoughts!
UPDATE
Some months later, i found http://www.gitlabhq.com/ - exactly what i was searching for. Didn't really have the time to use it, but seems to fit the needs!
If you'll use (for example) Subversion (svn-client exist in OSX) you can use any mentioned here bash-scripts for automating deploy (for any transfer-protocol really) of files, changed between revisions (OLD-RELEASE and NEW-RELEASE in your case) with (possibly) smallest adaptations or Ryby-script, which export range from a box.
Uploading tree by FTP in unattended way is a task for second tool - ncftp, ncftpput namely
I am the only developer of a software project. I did not use any version control until now. I know I can put the last version of the project under version control. The question is whether it is possible to put older versions and branches of the project under version control. If it is possible, how ?
which version control software should I use ? (I am using Visual Studio 2008)
Edit: I have almost all previous versions.
You could do it, assuming you have copies of the older revisions that you want to put into source control (you can't magically make them appear, of course).
What I would do is take the oldest version, put it somewhere, and commit the folder to your source control (this would become Revision 1). Then, take the second-oldest version, overwrite the first version on your hard drive with that, then check in again (this becomes Revision 2 in source control). Repeat, overwriting with the next-newest revision each time until all of the versions you want are checked in.
There are good, free version control systems available. I use SVN (with the TortoiseSVN shell add-on), and I'm quite happy with it. CVS is alright too, but gets very slow as projects get large.
Which VCS you should use is really up to you. I'd recommend Mercurial as it is a very good distributed VCS and runs rather well under Windows. I don't know what VS support but you may want to use a supported VCS (which probably means Subversion I guess). There is TortoiseHg available there as well.
If you have all previous versions, you can import them manually, one after the other to get to the last one then work from that.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Background
I work on a lot of small projects (prototypes, demos, one-offs, etc.). They are mostly coded in Visual Studio (WPF or ASP.NET with code written in C#). Usually, I am the only coder. Occasionally, I work with one other person. The projects come and go, usually in a matter of months, but I have a constantly evolving set of common code libraries that I reuse.
The problem
I've tried to use source control software before (SourceGear Vault), but it seemed like a lot of overhead when working on a small project, especially when I was the only programmer. Still, I would like some of the features that version control offers.
Here's a list of features I'd like to have:
Let me look at any file in an older version of my project instantly. Please don't force me through the rigmarole of (1) checking in my current work, (2) reverting my local copy to the old version, and (3) checking the current version back out so I can once again work on it.
In fact, if I'm the only one on the project, I don't ever want to check out. The only thing I want to be able to do is say, "Please save what I have now as version 2.5."
Store my data efficiently. If I have 100 Mb of media in my project, I don't want that to get copied with every new version I release. Only copy what changes.
Let me keep my common library code files in a single location on my hard drive so that all my current projects can benefit from any bug fixes or improvements I make to my library. I don't want to have to keep copying my library to other projects every time I make a change.
However, do let me go back in time to any version of any project and see what the source code (including the library code) looked like at the time that version was released.
Please don't make me store a special database server on my machine that makes my computer take longer to start up and/or uses resources when I'm not even programming.
Does this exist?
If not, how close can I get?
Edit 1: TortoiseSVN impressions
I did some experimenting with Subversion. A couple observations:
Once you check something in to a repository, it does stuff to your files. It puts these hidden .svn folders inside your project folders. It messes with folder icons. I'm still yet to get my project back to "normal". Unversion a working copy got me part of the way there, but I still have folders with blue question mark icons. This makes me grumpy :-/ Update: finally got rid of the folder icons by manually creating new folders and copying the folders over. (Not good.)
I installed the open source plugin for Visual Studio (AnkhSVN). After creating a fresh repository in my hard drive, I attempted to check in a solution from Visual Studio. It did exact what I was afraid it would do. It checked in only the folders and files that are physically (from the POV of the file system) inside my solution folder. In order to accomplish item #5 above, I need all source code used by solution to be check in. I attempted to do this by hand, but it wasn't a user friendly process (for one thing, when I selected multiple library projects at once and attempted to check them in, it only appeared to check in the first one). Then, I started getting error dialogs when I tried to check in subsequent projects.
So, I'm a little frustrated with SVN (and its supporting software) at this point.
Edit 2: TortoiseHG impressions
I'm trying out Mercurial now (TortoiseHG). It was a little bit difficult to figure out at first, no better or worse than TortoiseSVN I'd say. I noticed an RPC Server on startup (relates to item 6). I figure it should be possible to turn this off if I'm not sharing anything with anyone, but it wasn't something I could figure out just by looking at the options (will check out the help later).
I do appreciate having my local repository as just a single .hg folder. And, simply throwing the folder in the Recycle Bin seemed to be all I needed to do to return everything back to normal (i.e., unversion my project). When I check in (commit), it seems to offer a simple comment window only. I thought maybe there would be a place to put version numbers.
My (probably not very clever) attempt to add a Windows shortcut (a folder aliasing my library projects) failed, not that I really thought it would work :) I thought maybe this would be a sneaky way to get my library projects (currently located elsewhere) included in the repository. But no. Maybe I'll try out "subrepos", but that feature is under construction. So, iffy that I'll be able to do items 4 and 5 without some manual syncing.
Any of the distributed source control solutions seem to match your requirements. Take a look at bazaar, git or mercurial (already mentioned above). Personally I have been using bazaar since v0.92 and have no complaints.
Edit: Heck, after looking at it again, I'm pretty sure any of those 3 solutions handles all 6 of your requested features.
Distributed Version Control Systems (Mercurial, Bazaar, Git) are nice in that they can be completely self-contained in a single directory (.hg, .bzr, .git) in the top of the working copy, where Subversion uses a separate repository directory, in addition to .svn directories in every directory of your working copy.
Mercurial and Subversion are probably the easiest to use on Windows, with TortoiseHG and TortoiseSVN; the Bazaar GUIs have also been improving. Apparently there is also TortoiseGit, though I haven't tried it. If you like the command line, Easy Git seems to be a bit nicer to use than the standard git commands.
I'd like to address point 4, common libraries, in more detail. Unfortunately I don't think any of them will be too easy to use, since I don't think they're directly supported by GUIs (I could be wrong). The only one of these I've actually used in practice is Subversion Externals.
Subversion is reasonably good at this job; you can use Externals (see the chapter in the SVN book), but to associate versions of a project with versions of a library you need to "pin" the library revision in the externals definition (which is itself versioned, as a property of the directory).
Mercurial supports something similar, but both solutions seem a bit immature: subrepository support built-in to the latest version and the "Forest Extension".
Git has "submodule" support.
I haven't seen anything like sub-respositories or sub-modules for Bazaar, unfortunately.
I think Fog Creek's new product, Kiln, will get you pretty close. In response to your specific points:
This is easily done through the web interface -- you don't need to touch your local copy or update. Just find the file you want, click the revision you want to see, and your code will be in front of you.
I'm not sure you can do things exactly like "Please save this as version 2.5", but you can add unique tags to changesets that allow you to identify a special revision (where "special" can mean whatever it wants to you).
Mercurial does a great job of this already (which Kiln uses in the back end), so there shouldn't be any problems in this regard.
By creating different repositories, you can easily have one central 'core' section which is consistent across various projects (though I'm not entirely sure if this is what you're talking about).
I think most version control systems allow you to do this...
Kiln is hosted, so there's no hit on performance to your local machine. The code you commit to the system is kept safe and secure.
Best of all, Kiln is free for up to two licenses by way of their Student and Startup Edition (which also gets you a free copy of FogBugz).
Kiln is in public beta right now -- you can request your account at my first link -- and users are being let as more and more problems are already resolved. (For some idea of what current beta users are saying, take a look at the Kiln Knowledge Exchange site that's dedicated to feedback.)
(Full Disclosure: I am an intern currently working at Fog Creek)
For your requirements I would recommend subversion.
Let me look at any file in an older version of my project instantly. Please don't force me through the rigmarole of (1) checking in my current work, (2) reverting my local copy to the old version, and (3) checking the current version back out so I can once again work on it.
You can use the repository browser of Tortoise Svn to navigate to every existing version easily.
In fact, if I'm the only one on the project, I don't ever want to check out. The only thing I want to be able to do is say, "Please save what I have now as version 2.5."
This is done by svn copy . svn://localhost/tags/2.5.
Store my data efficiently. If I have 100 Mb of media in my project, I don't want that to get copied with every new version I release. Only copy what changes.
Given by subversion.
Let me keep my common library code files in a single location on my hard drive so that all my current projects can benefit from any bug fixes or improvements I make to my library. I don't want to have to keep copying my library to other projects every time I make a change.
However, do let me go back in time to any version of any project and see what the source code (including the library code) looked like at the time that version was released.
Put your libraries into the same svn repository as your remaining code and you'll have global revision numbers to switch back all to a common state.
Please don't make me store a special database server on my machine that makes my computer take longer to start up and/or uses resources when I'm not even programming.
You only have to start svnserve to start a local server. If you only work on one machine you can even do without this and use your repository directly.
I'd say that Mercurial along with TortoiseHg will do what you want. Of course, since you don't seem to be requiring much, subversion with TortoiseSvn should serve equally well, if you only ever work alone, though I think mercurial is nicer for collaboration.
Mercurial:
hg cat --rev 2.5 filename (or "Annotate Files" in TortoiseHg)
hg commit ; hg tag 2.5
Mercurial stores (compressed) diffs (and "keyframes" to avoid having to apply ten thousand diffs in a row to find a version of a file). It's very efficient unless you're working with large binary files.
Symlink the library into all the projects?
OK, now that I read this point I'm thinking Mercurial's Subrepos are closer to what you want. Make your library a repository, then add it as a subrepository in each of your projects. When your library updates you'll need to hg pull in the subrepos to update it, unfortunately. But then when you commit in a project Mercurial will record the state of the library repo, so that when you check out this version later to see what it looked like you'll get the correct version of the library code.
Mercurial doesn't do that, it stores data in files.
Take a look on fossil, its single exe file.
http://www.fossil-scm.org
As people have pointed out, nearly any DVCS will probably serve you quite well for this. I thought I would mention Monotone since it hasn't been mentioned already in the thread. It uses a single binary (mtn.exe), and stores everything as a SQLite database file, nothing at all in your actual workspace except a _MTN directory on the top level (and .mtn-ignore, if you want to ignore files). To give you a quick taste I've put the mtn commands showing how one carries out your wishlist:
Let me look at any file in an older version of my project instantly.
mtn cat -r t:1.8.0 readme.txt
Please save what I have now as version 2.5
mtn tag $(mtn automate heads) 2.5
Store my data efficiently.
Monotone uses xdelta to only save the diffs, and zlib to compress the deltas (and the first version of each file, for which of course there is no delta).
Let me keep my common library code files in a single location on my hard drive so that all my current projects can benefit from any bug fixes or improvements I make to my library.
Montone has explicit support for this; quoting the manual "The purpose of merge_into_dir is to permit a project to contain another project in such a way that propagate can be used to keep the contained project up-to-date. It is meant to replace the use of nested checkouts in many circumstances."
However, do let me go back in time to any version of any project and see what the source code (including the library code) looked like at the time that version was released.
mtn up -r t:1.8.0
Please don't make me store a special database server on my machine
SQLite can be, as far as you're concerned, a single file on your disk that Monotone stores things in. There is no extra process or startup craziness (SQLite is embedded, and runs directly in the same process as the rest of Monotone), and you can feel free to ignore the fact that you can query and manipulate your Monotone repository using standard tools like the sqlite command line program or via Python or Ruby scripts.
Try GIT. Lots of positive comments about it on the Web.