Here is my situation:
The project I'm working on right now
uses a version control system
(Microsoft Team Foundation) that's
hosted and managed remotely by the
customer. I am in charge of doing a
massive refactoring/bugfixing after
somebody who left a horrendous mess of
code behind. Due to several reasons
that I won't detail here* I cannot
commit to the version control my
incremental changes while I patch
things up; and there is no way I can
be given a separate branch there.
Here is my question:
I want a version control system that I can use locally. I can't just keep doing "zip source folder and backup it". I want a track of changes. I want commit messages. I want to see what I did and when and why in a couple of months. In a pinch, I'm tired to rely on VS 'undo' command and to leave comments myself tracking what I'm doing and how it was before.
Here is what I would do:
I'd install mercurial/git locally and start versioning my own directories.
Problem is, I am not sure this is the best way. Hints? Ideas? I am not familiar at all with either Visual Studio or Team Foundation and can't seem to find my way around with them (I don't know how things are 'named' so I don't know what I'm looking for). Is it possible, using such tools, to do what I have described?
*basically the customer doesn't necessarily have to know that our lead developer quit in anger and left the most horrendous code mess I've ever seen behind me; that at least 3 people 'tried to fix' his code in a rush to patch bugs; that this ended up in a single class with a 400+ long method including a single 'for' loop, at least 5 places where code is repeated-but-not-completely, unused logic, wrong comments, while(true) loops, and increasing the 'for' counter in the loop body to look-ahead into an array list. Basically, we hope the customer won't notice what's happening and if they do we can fix it when they whine.
The usual approach is to:
"git init" directly in the directory you want to manage locally
add a .gitignore in order to not add any VCS-specific data or directory
git add .gitignore and commit
git add .
commit
That way, you have a local repo you can then clone, make branches, patches, ...
(I do it for ClearCase views for instance)
A similar approach, with similar commands, is valid with Hg Mercurial of course.
Related
I will start by saying this is probably a dumb question so apologies if I am staring at the answer but cannot see.
I have used VCS in the past primarily as a method of allowing me to revert my code if something goes wrong. I have always had a single lime of development. However I get into the usual trouble when releasing and starting the next version - dealing with bugs. So this time I decided to use branching (forking or whatever is the best name). I am a lone developer so I am the only one working with the repositiory. My scenerio is simple. I want to create a branch when I release so that I have a line for the released code and a line for the beta. I can then work happily on the beta. Now a bug comes in and I need to get back to the last commit for the release.
My question is what is the best way to get back that code in the IDE to work on it.
I have read that in Mercurial a simple way is to clone the repository including the working directory. This would give me two copies of the code base and I guess I can choose which one to load into the IDE. I would then use Push or pull to get the bug fixes from the release copy into the beta copy (I think).
I assume there must be another way however without cloning. How would I do that? I can guess at reverting to the last commit of the release code. Then I assume that loading the solution into the IDE would give me that. I am not sure where I would go from there when the code is done.
For the record I looked at a number of different VCS - I have used SVN in the past but wanted to go to a DVCS. I looked at Git, Bazaar, Mercurial and Veracity (and used Code-Coop in the past). You may think another tool would suit my needs better. Having tried the others however I found I could understand the way Mercurial works and the GUI tools such as TortoiseHg with the WorkBench and HgSccPackage (http://visualstudiogallery.msdn.microsoft.com/9bc074fa-9e1f-4ce2-a75d-b90e65f7475a) appeal
There are a lot of good documents and links here Introduction to Mercurial and I have read about different ways to branch that include using bookmarks and so on but they seem primarily targeted at multi member teams - which make sense of course
Many thanks in advance
You are mixing concepts a little, i guess you have SVN background ?
Just to answer you question, to 'get back the code in IDE' you will need to 'update' to a previous version. But this is considering you already have cloned the repository. Is your question about how to clone.. ? As you ask, there is no other way without cloning first. Cloning is the first step towards having a HG repository local. After clone, you can commit and push changes or pull and update.
To expand the answer even further and given that you are going to use Mercurial, here is what you should do:
read this : http://hginit.com/ - great HG (tutorial) by Joel Spolsky him self ! An introduction into HG and the concepts. You will need to understand this very good, since right now you are doing a lot of guessing, assuming and thinking :) HG/Git is different from SVN and in the begging the concepts might be hard to understand and to get used to.
for your project and regarding your question, have a branch called 'dev' or 'trunk' or 'version X' etc where you will commit all new changes.
have a branch called 'live' etc that will represent the current 'live' version. This way, whenever you need to revert back in time to the live version and to do a quick fix on it, you will 'update' to the tip of that 'live' branch, discarding all local changes (after you have committed to trunk! of course).
when putting a version to live, you will need to (assuming all changes are committed !) : update to the live branch then MERGE the version X into local (local being live ). This will include your versionX branch into live - it's what you need at this point. Then, either update back to version X branch or create a new branch - version X+1. This will take care of the versions and keeping the branches separate.
since you are using VS - install http://visualhg.codeplex.com/. HG source control integrated into VS.
I assume there must be another way however without cloning
Yes. You can use (named) branches inside single repo (I prefer HgSccPackage in VS), update to revisionbranch head, change, commit, merge
BTW, branching with bookmarks/clones/branches work the same (good) way for any size of team - it's a matter of taste
I'm doing a single developer Visual Studio solution and reached a point where I'd like to incorporate Versioning Control. Several posts address this issue, but one problem I'm facing is a large merge. I have a production copy of the solution and a beta copy. They are NOT dramatically different, but they will require a number of interactions I suspect. I'm using TortoiseSVN and have imported the production version.
Yes, I know I should have used Version Control from the start, but that is hind sight. Would it be best practice to simply use the beta as a reference and work the interations from scratch. Or should I branch off and import the beta separately, then attempt to merge the change. Or is there another alternative I'm missing.
Thanks,
dgp
well, I have experienced SVN in the past ... and I must say, it's lovely cause it's really easy to understand the concept, but it's awful terrible when things pass from the plain commit.
I'm currently using GIT (to host small code on GitHub) and Mercurial (Hg) (I use Kiln in the company - was recommended by myself so they can start using - and in BitBucket for personal use)
I have used SVN for more than a hole year and every time I need something from "the past" or to merge something, it was a nightmare, but the server/client concept was really a break deal and extremely easy to get it... but I found my self, over and over to do merging by hand :(
When GIT started to be hot, I was afraid to move as, dang! SVN was a pain, why should be different in a DVCS?
This videos rocked my world, [ part 1 part 2 ], only then I understood DVCS vs VCS and it was with this that I moved COMPLETELY to DVCS and never go back... proudly!
For your problem, I would install git (or hg), and then create a repository on the folder you have your current source with:
git init will tell your folder, "Hey, I'm a GIT Repo"
git add . let's add all files and folders to be tracked by git
git commit -m "initial commit" let's save all the hard work :)
So, now you have a tracked code, you can simple create a branch and overwrite all your files. YES, worry not, you don't need to have copies of your code in a folder called branch ;) no more copies! all is in the GIT database
then, after creating the branch, changed the files, added all files to be tracked on that branch and committed, safely do a merge :)
ohh, and you don't need a server connection to do all this, all you need is a computer with GIT installed... no more connection dependencies! DVCS is cool or what?! :D
Currently I am working on a project that uses TFS as source control. I am in the middle of implementing a piece of functionality, but am blocked by work that needs to be done by outside resources. Since the functionality is not fully complete, I can't check in the changes without breaking the build. So instead of waiting a couple days while the blocking work is finished, I want to work on some defects.
To do this work in isolation from my other changes, I am working the defects in a second workspace I just created.
After using a second workspace to isolate my changes, a coworker asked me why I didn't just shelve my changes. After doing some reading on shelving, it looks like this is preferred solution to situations like mine. My question is what situations, if any, would you create multiple workspaces and what situations should you use shelving? There are some posts about shelving, but I don't see very much on the subject of workspaces.
By the way, I got the idea for creating a second workspace here.
A new branch would probably be the best way to go. But, to answer your question, one of the key differences between shelving and just using a differnet workspace is that when you shelve, you push your code back to TFS, so it is backed up. Whatever is in your workspace is just what you have on your machine -- if you lose it, it's gone.
We use branching a lot in my shop, and as a result, I haven't seen many uses for shelving.
However, I have found one case where it has been very useful to me:
I often bounce between 2 different development machines (one at the office, one at home, connected via VPN). If I am working on something, and I want to transfer it from home to work, or vice-versa, I often use shelving. I can shelve it from one machine and un-shelve it from the other. I do this when I am in the middle of a change, and checking in would break the build or otherwise interrupt other developers.
You are talking about two completely different concepts here. When you shelve code, you are saving it to TFS, but not checking it in to any particular branch. Creating a different workspace just sets up a new local folder on your development machines and saves the files in your branch there. When you do a check-in, you still could have conflicts.
Why not create a new branch of your code. You can work on that branch and check in without stepping on anyone else's changes, because you are checking in to your own branch of the code. Then, when you have completed your changes, and others have completed their's on the main branch, you can merge your changes into the main branch.
Shelving is the ideal option. Shelving allows you to make changes en masse in TFS outside the regular build, and retrieve them later by name. Multiple workspaces is not a solution for what you're doing. Multiple workspaces are good if you're maintaining different versions of a product and need to work on them, e.g. let's say you have a 4.0 and a 5.0 product and need to apply a security fix to both versions. Shelving is great when you want to make changes but not commit them immediately.
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.
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.