|
Does anyone have any easier way of commiting partial changes to file(s)? Right now I go through the annoying process of making a copy of the file I want to commit partial changes of then reverting the original to the HEAD revision. Then I open up the two (in TortoiseMerge) and move the changes I want to commit from the copy to the original, save the original, and commit it. There's got to be a better way.
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2009 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
Yep, using SVN. 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2009 01:39
|
|
|
I'm trying to get some sort of version control working with my remote web server. I set up an SVN repository (on a hosted service) and figured that if I map my remote web server as a drive in Windows (via FTP) then I would be able to use the TortoiseSVN context menus normally in the mapped folder. However they don't appear at all - what are my other options? I'm basically trying to commit remote files that I have access to via FTP.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2009 22:59
|
|
|
Lysidas posted:Committing files with TortoiseSVN over a drive-letter-mapped FTP server is a bad idea. It isn't the worst idea, and you can probably get it to work, but there are much better ways. TortoiseSVN is probably configured to not display its context menus on network drives, and this is a good thing. If you have any other ideas I'd love to hear it. I also looked for any settings to enable Tortoise context menus in network mapped drives but couldn't find anything.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 19:40
|
|
|
Lysidas posted:Do you pay for this web hosting?  It's not ideal, but I'm just trying to come up with the best solution I can with what I have to work with. supster fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Oct 21, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 22:09
|
|
|
Can you explain in some more detail how a distributed system will help me where SVN can't? Maybe you can expand on "synchronize it afterwards". Maybe I should make clear that I'm not doing anything locally, files live remotely and work is done remotely. So "whatever the gently caress you want locally" doesn't help much because ideally* I don't want to do anything locally. *using the term "ideally" pretty loosely here
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2009 22:48
|
|
|
Did you read my posts? I'm not sure how to make it more clear. I don't have shell access to use svn or git on the server. It's a remote development environment for my use only. Production is in a completely different physical server (as is a staging environment and other development environments). Thanks for telling me that "I am wrong" when I've already said that I'm just trying to come up with a clean and easy-to-use source control system for the environment that I am working in (which cannot be changed). Thanks for your help anyway. edit: The OS not relevant as my only access remains to be FTP, but it's CentOS I think. edit2: and yes, obviously I need local copies of the files to make changes and then push back via FTP - but yes, this process is automated by my editor. supster fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Oct 22, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 01:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 12:46 |
|
|
uXs posted:So, um, you're making local copies... which you edit... and then copy back? Isn't this like another way of saying that you are developing locally? Then why can't you just version control your local copies?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2009 21:03
|
|