|
Is there a tool like gitk or the network graph generator on github, but for Windows? Github is being slow and hasn't updated (including file listings, latest commits, branch lists and of course the graph) since this afternoon. It is pissing me off.
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2009 04:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 16:47 |
|
|
What good ways are there to go about using scm when you are putting large existing *web sites* under version control? IE where several devs are making small changes all the time, so tagging and deploying is just ridiculous and the data transfer is unfeasible. Currently the best thing I can come up with is having the production directory on the server as an actual working dir (and protecting the .git folder with .htaccess), then pulling to deploy any changes (the changes are done on a test server then pushed to the origin repo). Is there any real disadvantage of this? The site has been around since 2003 and this huge jumble of code, and I think bolting git on will just help prevent people making index2_bak.new.old.jun2004.php~ files all the time, and also means we can be sure we're updating the latest copy. It is never going to be ideal, but what would you do in this situation? Ferg posted:TortoiseGit, as well as GitExtensions fall flat on their face with regards to functionality in my experience. I just don't see Git as a tool you can use outside of the commandline, or at least without using both simultaneously. I just use the bash shell that msysgit includes and run it purely out of that. This is awesome, I really can't see how it could be improved with a shoddy gui.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2009 15:01
|
|
|
wwb posted:We've got a few large, shoddy websites not too dissimlar to this. Ok, well, I put an iron fist down and ended the live updates on production angle. Our pattern is generally now having a production branch and then having people update that, let the responsible parties who can actually touch the production boxes know, and then those folks do an update. Well we'll be getting the devs to use version control. This is honesty the best way I can think of doing this, and I've written a script that can update from the repo at the touch of a button.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2009 01:04
|
|
|
samiamwork posted:Yeah, GitHub is pretty awesome. I just wish they would stop using so much Flash on their site (actually I wish they would stop using Flash completely). For me, the big thing Google Code has going for it is that it's Google and it's safe to say they're not really going anywhere. I'm not so sure about GitHub yet, but who knows SourceForge is still around and I have no idea what keeps them afloat. If Google Code had git I'd be happy as hell. Anywho, I'm having a bit of an issue with git, basically every time something gets pulled from a repo, git resets the permissions to rwxr--r-- which sucks, because the group (users) needs to be able to work on the files. Why is this happening? How can I stop it? Thanks
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2009 15:46
|
|
|
floWenoL posted:Why are multiple people working on the same repository? Because the website is giant and most of the time we need to make small changes that don't require having a copy of several GB site and db on our own boxes. I know it is an un-ideal situation, but I really can't think of a better solution at the moment.The site is some giant hack of a 2003 version of osCommerce, I'm pushing for a rewrite, but there's just so much functionality we'd have to replicate. Haarg posted:The permissions used for files in working copy can be controlled with the core.sharedRepository config option. It can be set to group, all, umask, or a mode in octal. The default is to use the umask. It's documented in the git config documentation. Hey, I may try that - it is mainly the repo files (the ones under .git/ that are the issue, now.). Thanks!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2009 09:45
|
|
