I working on a company machine and cannot change the name of the windows username. I am running TortoiseSvn locally and I would like to change the commits to my name. I do not want to right click each commit and manually change the names. Is there a way to do this? I know that there are a couple of threads about this but there are no solutions.
Yes, there is a way to do it, but you probably can't.
In Subversion, there are two types of properties: File properties that are revisioned with the file itself, and Revision properties that are attached not to a file, but to a revision. These are not versioned.
There are several standard revision properties:
svn:log: This is the commit comment.
svn:author: This is the user who made the commit.
svn:date: This is the date and time stamp of the commit.
You can change any of these revision properties with this command:
$ svn pset svn:log --rev-prop -r193 "The commit comment for revsion #193 is this!"
It would be fairly simple to write a script in PowerShell or Python or Perl to do this to a whole bunch of revisions at once. However, you can imagine what type of havoc this could wreck if you could change the date, authorship, and commit comment of any Subversion revision at whim.
Therefore, in order to be able to use a rev-prop change, the repository must have a hook to allow you to do this. This is the only case where you must have a hook to explicitly allow a permitted action. And, of course, it is highly doubtful that you will have the ability to create such a hook.
Now, I'm assuming you were talking about already committed revisions. If you are sharing a working copy, and you make changes, and then commit those changes along with everyone else, you're using Subversion all wrong.
Each user should have their own working directory where they can make changes. This way, the repository will record who did the commit without any shenanigans.
If you simply want to checkout from the repository with a name other than your Windows name, you can save your authentication on your local machine, and Subversion will use that authorization when it does checkouts from that repository.
I believe that authorizations are stored under the %HOMEPATH%.subversion\auth directory. It shouldn't take too long to find the file with the authorization and delete it. Then, when you checkout the next time, you need to specify the user and password and save the credentials. After that, that's what TortoiseSVN will use by default when you use that repository.
That's three different answers covering three different situations in using Subversion and credentials. If I didn't answer the correct scenario, edit your question and explain exactly what you mean and what you want to accomplish. The situation you describe isn't very clear.
Related
We have an existing repository on the network accessed via HTTP:.
Should I first import these files to my local machine? I tried importing directories, files, etc., everything is empty in my local folders. It says "success", but nothing ever shows up!
It doesn't make sense to create a repository on my side. But all the tutorials seem to say that, but then I think they're assuming you're starting from nothing.
My experience with Tortoise SVN has mostly been negative. Typically whatever I think I should do turns out to be incorrect, and I end up having to undo, and redo, or lose my work. Once I even managed to corrupt the main repository and it had to be restored from backup.
I absolutely cannot damage this existing repository!
If you're used to CVS or some older version control systems, note that SVN uses the same terms differently. In those, checkout often means lock in exclusive mode.
In SVN checkout will make a copy and automatically manage the revisions and help you merge from multiple sources. You don't need to lock a file, unless it's graphical or some other binary where merging doesn't make sense.
So in TortoiseSVN, you can checkout, and edit the files. The icons on the files will change to indicate their status.
SVN is easy in comparison to git, where the same terms are again redefined and significantly augmented!
We work with a git respository that has over 20,000 files.
My group maintains local versions of about 100 or so of configuration and source files from this repository. THe original acts as a sort of base that several groups modify and tweak to their own needs (some core things are not allowed to be changed, but front end and some custom DB stuff are different between groups)
So we want to update to the latest version generally, but not have the git update overwrite the files that we keep local modifications for.
The machines we use are windows based. Currently the repository gets cloned to a windows server that then gets checked out/cloned to the development machines (which are also windows). The developers make changes as necessary and recommit to our local repo. The local repo updates against the master daily. We never commit back to the master.
So we want all the files that haven't been changed by our group to update, but any that have been changed (ever) won't get updated.
Is there a way to allow this to happen automatically, so the windows server just automatically updates daily, ignoring those files we keep modifications for. And if we want to add a new file to this "don't update" list its just a right-click (or even a flat file list away). I looked at git-ignore but it seems to be for committing, not for updating.
Even better would be a way to automatically download the vanilla files but have them renamed automatically. For example settings.conf is a file we want to keep changes on generally, but if they modify the way entries in that file are handled or add extra options it would be nice it it downloaded it as settings.conf.vanilla or something so we just run a diff on .vanilla files against ours and see what we want to keep. Though this feature is not absolutely necessary and seems unlikely.
If this cannot be accomplished on a windows machine (the software for windows doesn't support such features), please list some Linux options as well if available. We do have an option to use a Linux server for hosting the local git repo if needed.
Thanks.
It sounds like you're working with a third party code base that's under active development and you have your own customisations which you need to apply.
I think the answer you're looking for is rebase. You shouldn't need to write any external logic to achieve this, except for a job which regularly pulls in the third party changes and rebases your modifications on top of them.
This should also be more correct than simply ignoring the files you've modified, as you won't then accidentally ignore changes that the third party has made to those files (you may sometimes get a conflict, which could be frustrating, but better than silently missing an important change).
Assuming that your local repo is indeed simply a fork, maintain your changes on your own branch, and every time you update the remote repository, simply rebase your local branch on top of those changes:
git pull origin master
git checkout custom_branch
git rebase master
Edit
After you've done this, you'll end up with all the changes you made on your custom_branch sitting on top of master. You can then continue to make your customisations on your own branch, and development of the third party code can continue independently.
The next time you want to pull in the extra changes, you'll repeat the process:
Make sure you're on the master branch before pulling in changes to the third party code:
git checkout master
Pull in the changes:
git pull origin master
Change to your customised branch:
git checkout custom_branch
Move your changes on top of the third party changes:
git rebase master
This will then put all your own changes on top of master again. master itself won't be changed.
Remember that the structure of your repo just comes from a whole set of "hashes" which form a tree. Your branches are just like "post it" notes which are attached to a particular hash, and can be moved to another hash as your branch grows.
The rebase is like chopping off a branch and re-attaching it somewhere else. In this case, you're saying something like "chop off our changes and re-attach them on top of the main trunk".
If you can install a visual tool like GitX, it will really help to see how the branch tags move around when you rebase. The command line is ideal for working with but I find something like GitX is invaluable for getting a handle on the structure of your repo.
I work mainly on a desktop Mac but also have a laptop Mac that I use when away from the office.
I want to access and work on my latest html, css, php and python files from either computer.
I thought Github was the way to do this but am having a problem understanding the "flow" and I've RTFM! I don't understand whether I should create a Repository on Github first, why when I try to "clone" something it doesn't magically end up on my local computer... where the nice big red button that says "sync" is...
... or whether I should just use the commandline ONLY...
So, if I start on my desktop and create new files, what are the correct steps using git or Github (?) to put those files where they can then be accessed from my laptop and then have the files on my laptop merged back into the ?Github repository so I can then access those files from my desktop.
Thank you all for your replies and answers! The git workflow, for my needs, is now clear.
The workflow presented by wadesworld is concise and was the overview I needed.
However, Michael Durrant's commandline steps filled in that workflow specifically with commandline directives - and I needed that also.
steelclaw and uDaY's answers and responses were important because I did not understand that it did not matter which repo I created first and, adding and committing locally were essential first steps in my workflow.
Specifically, steelclaw's response to one of my response questions provided the closure I needed, so I could learn more:
After initializing the repository, be sure to use 'add' and 'commit.' These will make the files an official version of the repository. After that, you need to use 'push' to upload it to the remote repository."
ilollar's resource, "Git for Ages 4 and Up" is also worthy of the click, especially for folks like me who are visual!
Thank you all so very much!!
Do you want to version control your files or just have access to the same files in both places?
It is a good idea to use version control as a developer, whether you're writing code or designing websites. But, to do so, you have to have a commitment to learning how version control systems work, since they all have some learning curve.
But, if you're not interested in that complexity and simply want to be sure you have access to the latest version of your files, then you're looking at a file syncing operation which can be much more simple.
So, which one do you want?
Edit: Based on the response, here's the model:
1) Create repository on work computer.
2) Create repository with same name on github.
3) Push to repository on github
4) At home, do a git clone to pull down the changes you pushed.
5) Now that the repository exists in both locations, you can simply do a git push before you leave work, and git pull when you get home, and vice-versa when going the other direction.
To answer the detail of your question: I'd go with Dropbox.
UbuntuOne is also good even for non Ubuntu users and of course Google drive is the (big) new player on the block.
They compare as follows:
Service Free*1 NextLevel*1 NextLevel($)*2 Features
Dropbox 2 50 $2.5O One Folder, best gui sync tools.
UbuntuOne 5 20 $4.00 Multiple directories anywhere
GDrive 5 25 $2.50 It's Google.
*1 GB
*2 Cost per month
To answer the title of your question:
If you wanted something that's more suited to programmers, I'd use git:
First, install gitx (linux readers, that's gitg) as that is by far the most popular gui for git:
For the "flow" I can also refer you to my write-up of various features at:
What are the core concepts of git, github, fork & branch. How does git compare to SVN?
Using gitx or gitg the specific flow is as follow:
1) Make some changes to files.
2) Use the tools "commit" tab to see what's changed ("unstaged"):
3) Add a file by dragging it from "unstaged" to "staged":
4) Give a commit message
5) Commit the file.
6) I then push it to the remote at the command line with $ git push remote or I use the gui by right clicking and select ing the 2nd master - see here:
.
If I'm sharing with others I'll often need to do git pull to get ands merge in others chnages) before being able to do a git push
The github part is doing init and push and clone but I'd say just read up on those tutorials more rather than an SO question. Basically though, I do:
Set up repository locally in git:
git init
git add .
git commit "Initial commit"
Set up github:
Create a github repository using github (https://help.github.com/articles/create-a-repo)and then push your local repository to it as in:
git push origin master.
If the repository already exists on github but not on your local pc, that's wheh you click the remote link and then in a terminal type git clone [paste here, e.g. ctrl-v]
If you're "starting" with github:
Make code changes
git pull - get latest version into your repository and merge in any changes
git add . Add all modified files
git commit -m "message"
git push # origin master is the default.
If, at the end of the day you decide to go with something simple like Dropbox you can use my referral link -http://db.tt/pZrz4t3k- to get a little more than the standard 2GB, Using this we both get an extra 0.5 GB, however which of all these routes to go is up to you and your needs. I use all these services (git, github, UbuntuOne, Dropbox and googleDrive, so I am not recommending one over the others -it depends on the needs).
I would recommend using DropBox or Google Drive. They will let you do EXACTLY what you are trying to achieve, they are very user friendly (and free [5 Gb I think]).
They automatically update (as long as you have an internet connection obviously)
Just make a folder, put some files in it, and you are away.
Since explaining how to use an entire VCS in one answer is an overwhelming task, I can instead point you in the direction of some very helpful resources to get you to understanding and using Git:
Pro Git - a free online book (written with Git!) with easy language on all things Git.
GitHub Help - GitHub's own help section walks you through setting up and using Git, and not just with their own apps. Very useful.
Get Started with Git - A good tutorial getting you up and running with Git.
Git For Ages 4 and Up - Fantastic video explaining the inner-workings of Git with Tinker Toys. Not best for an introduction into Git, but a great video to watch once you feel a bit more comfortable.
Git may feel complicated or strange at first, but if what you are looking for is a good version control system, it is excellent.
However, if all you're looking for is a cloud-like service to sync some files across multiple computers, like the others have mentioned, Dropbox would be the way to go.
I use Github as a "hub" of git, to share finished codes. (And Git for version control)
And Dropbox to sync files between different computers and mobile/tablet, to manage files.
http://db.tt/EuXOgGQ
They serve different purposes for me. Both are good!
Git is an advanced and rather difficult tool to use for version control. If you're feeling brave, you can try to install the command line tool, however I recommend using a graphical client, specifically SourceTree.
http://www.atlassian.com/software/sourcetree/overview
You'll need to clone your repository, or else initialize a new one. To connect to your repository, you'll need to know the URL, and possibly a username and password for your repository. You also need to provide a valid name for the repository.
To update files there are several steps: First, you need to add the changes to the directory. Source tree might do this automatically. Then you need to commit the changes. This is basically confirming changes and signing them with a comment. To upload them, you need to use push and select the correct remote repository. When you want to update your local repository, you'll need to use pull and again select the correct remote repository.
For your purposes, however, it seems like dropbox might be better, because it automatically updates and is very simple. If you don't need the advanced version control that git provides (e.g. branching, merging from many users), then it seems like it would be a better option for you.
https://www.dropbox.com/
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.
How do you store file permissions in a repository? A few files need to be read-only to stop a third party program from trashing it but after checking out of the repository they are set to read-write.
I looked on google and found a blog post from 2005 that states that Subversion doesn't store file-permissions. There are patches and hook-scripts listed (only one url still exists). Three years later does Subversion still not store file permissions and are hooks the only way to go about this? (I've never done hooks and rather use something that is native to Subversion.)
SVN does have the capability of storing metadata (properties) along with a file. The properties are basically just key/value pairs, however there are some special keys like the 'svn:executable', if this property exists for a file, Subversion will set the filesystem's executable bit for that file when checking the file out. While I know this is not exactly what you are looking for it might just be enough (was for me).
There are other properties for line ending (svn:eol-style) and mime type(svn:mime-type).
There's no native way to store file permissions in SVN.
Both asvn and the patch from that blog post seem to be up (and hosted on the official SVN repository), and that's a good thing, but I don't think they will have such metadata handling in the core version any time soon.
SVN has had the ability to handle symbolic links and executables specially for a long while, but neither work properly on Win32. I wouldn't hold my breath for another such non-portable feature (though it wouldn't be too hard to implement on top of the already existing metadata system.)
I would consider writing a shell script to manually adjust file permissions, then putting it in the repository.
One possible solution would be to write a script that you check in with the rest of your code and which is run as the first step of your build process.
This script runs through your copy of the codebase and sets read permissions on certain files.
Ideally the script would read the list of files from a simple input file.
This would make it easy to maintain and easy for other developers to understand which files get marked as read-only.
Since this wasn't fully said in previous responses yet. I hate to resurrect zombied threads though.
Since adding permission support for SVN would have to accommodate multiple OS's and permission types, NFS, POSIX, ARWED, and RACF
This would make SVN bloated, possibly clash with conflicting permission types like NFS and POSIX, or open up possible exploits/security vulnerabilities.
There are a couple of workarounds.
pre-commit, post-commit, start-commit are the more commonly used, and are a part of the Subversion system.
But will allow you to control the permissions with what ever programming language you like.
The system I implemented is what I call a packager, that validates the committed files of the working copy, then parses a metadata file, which lists out the default permissions desired for files/folders, and any changes to them you also desire.
Owner, Group, Folders, Files
default: <user> www-user 750 640
/path/to/file: <user> non-www 770 770
/path/to/file2: <user> <user> 700 700
You can also expand upon this and allow things such as automated moving, renaming them, tagging revision by types, like alpha, beta, release candidate, release
As far as supporting clients to checkout your repository files with permissions attached to them. You are better off looking into creating an installer of your package and offering that as a resource.
Imagine people setting their repositories with an executable in it set with permissions of root:www-user 4777
This is the updated link for SVN patch which handles unix style file permissions correctly. I have tested out on fedora12 and seems to work as expected:
I just saved it /usr/bin/asvn and use asvn instead of svn command if i need permissions handled correctly.
Many answers have stated that svn does not store file permissions. This may be true, but I was able to solve a dll file without execute permissions problem simply by these steps:
chmod 755 badpermission.dll
mv badpermission.dll ../
svn update
svn rm badpermission.dll
svn commit badpermission.dll -m "Remove dll to fix permissions"
mv ../badpermission.dll .
svn add badpermission.dll
svn commit badpermission.dll -m "Add the dll back to fix permissions"
rm badpermission.dll
svn update
badpermission.dll comes back with execute permissions
#morechilli:
The asvn wrapper from my earlier post and the blog in the OP's post seems to do what you're suggesting. Though it stores the permissions in the corresponding files' repository properties as opposed to a single external file.
I would recommend to generate permissions map using mtree utility (FreeBSD has it by default), store the map in the repository, and, as was mentioned above, run a script that would restore proper file permissions from the map as the first step of the build process.
Locking would not solve this problem. Locking stops others from editing the file. This is a third party application which gets run as part of the build process that tries to write to a file - changing it - which breaks the build process. Therefore we need to stop the program from changing the file which is simply marking the file read-only. We would like that information to be held in the repository and carried across checkins, branches, etc.
Graham, svn doesn't store permissions. Your only option is to wrap your call to svn in a script. The script should call svn with its arguments, then set the permissions afterward. Depending on your environment, you might need to call your script svn and tweak your PATH to ensure it gets called.
I quite like morechilli's idea to have the list of files and permissions checked into the repository itself.
We created a batch file to do this for us. Would prefer actual support in subversion though...
Consider using svn lock to disallow others from writing to the file.