|
welp
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
Mr SuperAwesome posted:some people have programming jobs where they aren't allowed internet access Are you taking medication yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:09
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:how do svn migrations go anyway?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
St Evan Echoes posted:very carefully, op your avatar sums up my past experiences with svn merges
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
and my experiences with anything in git
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
we use mercurial here which seems easier but that could also just be coupled with me being better at that now and not having the learning curve that i had to go through with svn
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:22
|
|
|
my company's BI team's SVN repo has no branches, tags, or trunk directory; they've put all their files and folders directly under the top-level directory. is it even possible to branch and merge without these folders?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
MORE CURLY FRIES posted:we use mercurial here which seems easier but that could also just be coupled with me being better at that now and not having the learning curve that i had to go through with svn mercurial is an ownage name for source control software
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
there was a place i worked at which used vault which would get an exclusive lock on a file when someone was editing it which was p good for a team of seven people
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
compuserved posted:my company's BI team's SVN repo has no branches, tags, or trunk directory; they've put all their files and folders directly under the top-level directory. is it even possible to branch and merge without these folders? svn has no built-in concept of branches or tags, it's just a file system. /trunk /branch and /tag are just conventions. you can move all the stuff into a /trunk dir, and create a /branch and /tag dir, commit it and fix the problem right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
rotor posted:svn has no built-in concept of branches or tags, it's just a file system. /trunk /branch and /tag are just conventions. you can move all the stuff into a /trunk dir, and create a /branch and /tag dir, commit it and fix the problem right now. oh cool, thanks rotor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Bloody posted:and my experiences with anything
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
What about TFSVC.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:how do svn migrations go anyway? idk? migrations from what to what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:41
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:idk? migrations from what to what? Move from server A to server B with different hosts and poo poo. Say that you, VC Powerhouse™, acquire company Silicon Bubl™ and with luck, you both use SVN. You decide to move their SVN poo poo to your SVN poo poo so that the sysadmin dudes only have one set of servers to handle, in their own datacenters. How does that go?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Also I just remembered that SVN locks are a thing because of the terrible copy/merge and uuugh (this then brings me back to CVSNT and uuuuuuugh)
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
So the local repository thing git has seems like a great thing after all. Our remote is down since our systems architect felt like doing updates and changes at work with no notice again. lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Move from server A to server B with different hosts and poo poo. Say that you, VC Powerhouse™, acquire company Silicon Bubl™ and with luck, you both use SVN. You decide to move their SVN poo poo to your SVN poo poo so that the sysadmin dudes only have one set of servers to handle, in their own datacenters. just copy + paste the repo dir from server to server. if they are different subversion versions, update them to the same version before copying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Also I just remembered that SVN locks are a thing because of the terrible copy/merge and uuugh eh? you mean the svn lock command or something else?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Mr SuperAwesome posted:some people have programming jobs where they aren't allowed internet access majorly hosed up it's just weird for me 'cause on any given day i could be using a bunch of languages and who can remember the method signature for function X in language Y?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
MononcQc posted:Move from server A to server B with different hosts and poo poo. Say that you, VC Powerhouse™, acquire company Silicon Bubl™ and with luck, you both use SVN. You decide to move their SVN poo poo to your SVN poo poo so that the sysadmin dudes only have one set of servers to handle, in their own datacenters. it goes fine as long as you don't want them under the same repo. if you must have them in the same repo and retain history then it's hard but doable iirc
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:44
|
|
|
Blinkz0rz posted:majorly hosed up i bet they buy a lot of books
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
rotor posted:it goes fine as long as you don't want them under the same repo. if you must have them in the same repo and retain history then it's hard but doable iirc unless both companies have been working on the same exact module idk why you'd ever want to do that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:unless both companies have been working on the same exact module idk why you'd ever want to do that. and even then you'd either want the modules separate - thus two repos - or in one place, in which case merge & commit as usual
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
yeah I think there are these weird people who have an aversion to repository count and try to stick everything into a single repo which is megafail
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:yeah I think there are these weird people who have an aversion to repository count and try to stick everything into a single repo which is megafail you see this a lot in git workflows because git submodules are so hosed up
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
i bet it also has to do w/ using bad languages w/ poorly defined library mechanisms + build systems instead of a java or c#
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:01
|
|
|
rotor posted:git submodules are so hosed up
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
git sucks because they had all these verbs from subversion they could've used but chose not to because they're loving linux programmers and it has to be different and clever yes i work at a place which just switched from svn to git why do you ask Share Bear fucked around with this message at 19:09 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
rotor posted:svn has no built-in concept of branches or tags, it's just a file system. /trunk /branch and /tag are just conventions. you can move all the stuff into a /trunk dir, and create a /branch and /tag dir, commit it and fix the problem right now. god i miss branches being in actual different directories rather than janitoring one working copy and hoping nothing fucks up
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:29
|
|
|
Shaggar posted:yeah I think there are these weird people who have an aversion to repository count and try to stick everything into a single repo which is megafail I've sold monorepos to Brockway, Ogdenville, and North Haverbrook!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
if you think monorepos are bad you probably never deploy or release software
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
the same software devs i sent my haskell source code to today use svn by taking their current project, putting it all into a zip file name <today's date>.zip, then adding that to the list of other zip files in trunk. version control!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:51
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:the same software devs i sent my haskell source code to today use svn by taking their current project, putting it all into a zip file name <today's date>.zip, then adding that to the list of other zip files in trunk. version control! i had a group project last year in university where people would create zips of the project and email them round to everyone i then told them to use version control and they continued to zip the project and just push them to github 
Valeyard fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
tef posted:if you think monorepos are bad you probably never deploy or release software no no, i mean source repos. Binary repos sure, you should only have the one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
well, one release and one snapshot
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
tef posted:if you think monorepos are bad you probably never deploy or release software svn:externals are great
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Valeyard posted:i had a group project last year in university where people would create zips of the project and email them round to everyone sounds like the same guys that work at my company except with svn instead of github
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
just keep everything in one file, saves time and heartache
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 19:21 |
|
|
rotor posted:it goes fine as long as you don't want them under the same repo. if you must have them in the same repo and retain history then it's hard but doable iirc Yeah no, you don't want to merge unrelated repos for that. I'm just wondering how it goes in general to migrate SVN poo poo. Like I've lived through migrations of CVS -> CVSNT, CVSNT -> SVN, git -> git and hg -> hg, but never svn -> svn, which is why I was asking about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:41
|
|