I have a class, which is part of a code library project that was written for a particular purpose that is no longer required. So the question is what do you do with code like this? Do you simply delete it, or do you leave it in bearing in mind that future developers may come across it and not realise that they can disregard it or do you have some sort of archive system, is there a recognised "pattern" that is in use...
Delete it. You can always get it back from the version control system later. You do have version control, don't you?
As Neil said, delete it. If I'm hired to maintain your project years after you are done with it and it's still full of dead code.. I'm gonna haunt you. And not the ooooohhhhh nice kinda haunting.. but the ARRRRWWWGGGGGRRRR!!!!! annoying kind of haunting.
It depends.
If it is unused because it is obsolete, I would clean it from the current code base by deleting it. If it turns out that it is in fact needed, you can always retrieve it from source control.
If it is unused at the moment, but may be used in the near future, I would keep it in the current code base as I wouldn't expect fellow developers to browse the source control for features just in case. In other words: if you delete something that has a high chance of being used, chances are that someone will re-implement it.
If it is not used anywhere, and no longer required you should delete it to avoid confusion.
You didn't say what code you are using but in C#/VisualStudio you can use the Obsolete attribute to tell other developers not to use the code, you can set the errors argument to true, and this will break the build anywhere that the code is being used.
I would start off by tagging the out-dated code elements with the Obsolete attribute. That way you will be able to locate any code that refers to the out-dated elements, giving you a way to update those parts. When you no longer get any compiler warnings that you use obsoleted code, go ahead and delete it.
Update: OK, now I was thinking .NET and C#, but I am sure many other languages have similar features...
I try to keep my application code as little as possible. Library code should be compatible for a number of release then remove it or just mark it as deprecated.
I totally agree with Neil. Use SVN or any other version control system to keep track of your code and delete anything that is redundant. Too much commented code only makes your code hard to read, and in some cases debugging impossible.
The best option is to remove the code so you have a cleaner repository. Most of the time it is just a short term fealing you delete somehting of potential enormous value.
Counting on svn if fellow programmer need it later won't really work. Because you have to know the code existed before and then some has to scan through the svn.
If I really think I want to keep that code than I usually make an archive out of the files and add them with a description into our wiki and then I delete the code. Over the search of the wiki someone can find the code. Scan it using the archive and as the decription contains repository and revision number they can even ressurect the parts they need easily.
If it's much, reusable and/or code difficult to reproduce, I usually put it into a file called <projectname>_rubbish.<ext>. Not very elegant but I can easily ignore it and also look for it seamlessly when I do need it again.
Install GIT then:
cd <code repo>
git init .
git add .
git commit -m 'inital import for my old code'
... Refactor the code ...
git add <path/to/file/with/changes/>
git commit -m 'that feels much better... :)'
... Create an account on GitHub or setup a GitServer
git remote add origin <remote git repo>
git push origin master
And you're done... :)
Simply delete it. If it is no longer required, there is no point in keeping it.
Related
Does anyone know what the equivalent of git commit -a is in gitpython?
I have tried repo.index.commit, but don't see how to add the -a option.
repo.index.add adds only new files, not existing files that have been modified. It doesn't seem to support the update function as in git add -u.
I could do something like repo.git.commit('-a'), or even
repo.git.add('-u')
repo.index.commit(comment)
But I would think the high-level interface should be capable of doing this. Am I missing something?
Thanks in advance,
Evert
You are not missing anything. GitPython acts more like plumbing, not like the porcelain that is git add -u and git commit.
Therefore it is viable and recommended to use the provided git command wrapper to get work done quickly as already demonstrated in your example (e.g. repo.git.add(update=True)).
Even though it is possible to implement anything purely in GitPython, it wouldn't perform as well or be as proven as the respective native git implementation already is.
GitPython starts to become powerful if you want to access git repository data quickly and conveniently through a relatively convenient and pythonic API. Examples include accessing branch and tag information, or querying commits in all detail.
I'm programming in xcode (actually Phone Gap in conjunction with xcode) with git. I'm having a strange issue. When I create two identical branches and try to check out back and fourth between them with out making any changes git is telling me that I need to commit because a change has been made (this same thing is also resulting in merge conflicts). It says the changed file is:
platforms/ios/Butterfli.xcodeproj/project.xcworkspace/xcuserdata/benpearce.xcuserdatad/UserInterfaceState.xcuserstate
Can anyone explain what's going on and how to deal with it.
Yes, .xcworkspaces are simply files that Xcode uses to describe the workspace or projects.
IMHO, There's no need to check these files in at all, unless you share settings with other folks in your projects (and in your case, I suppose other machines that have a user named "benpearce").
In fact, you can safely add them to your .gitignore file.
More info can be seen here
Please bear with me here, because I'm a beginner when it comes to version control systems. I've decided to start with the very simple GitHub app. What I want to do is (because I work in Dreamweaver) when I save a file a window to pop-up and ask me if I want to commit, is something like this achievable and if so... then how?
Perhaps there's a solution that uses a directory watcher to watch for changes and then prompt?
In my opinion, this isn't really a good solution though - you don't just want to use Git as a "backup" solution, you want each commit to be a mini-milestone that represents some logical group of changes. I can't think of a single instance where the first time I saved a change to a file it was commit-worthy. If you were to commit with every save, how would you ever test those changes?
I haven't used it myself but the GitWeaver extension may be what you are looking for.
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
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.