|
Just ignore the folder without deleting the files.
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 13:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Sorry, that was pre-coffee. By ignore I meant svn-ignore the folder and don't bother deleting the files. SVN should take care of the rest.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2009 14:59
|
|
|
haywire posted:What good ways are there to go about using scm when you are putting large existing *web sites* under version control? 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. Anyhow, I think once you get the initial commit in, tagging the production release shouldn't hurt that much even if there are 15 million files involved. Really, the bigger trick is to get the hackers hacking on said site to get used to using version control successfully.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2009 14:45
|
|
|
I think the bigger problem you'll have to deal with, vis-a-vis sourcesafe, is the whole making files readonly/locking stuff nightmare.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2009 19:18
|
|
|
AnkhSVN is still around? I'd just pay the $10 for VisualSVN and get on with my life . . .
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 23:30
|
|
|
epswing posted:setting up mercurial on windows? Not sure what you are running on, but see http://www.jeremyskinner.co.uk/mercurial-on-iis7/. Could help. Also, if you have a virtual host running around, you could always just use this http://www.turnkeylinux.org/revision-control [EFB: Bitnami is also a good option]
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2010 14:34
|
|
|
Typically, one sets up the generated output to be ignored for vcs purposes. Exactly how really depends on what VCS you are using is.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2010 13:06
|
|
|
If they don't change that much, and they need to be changed in concert, I would just figure out how to statically link the binaries rather than dynamically include the source. That might just be me.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2011 21:14
|
|
|
Why does linus give a poo poo what replaces SVN on windows? Working through the move to DCVS here -- though at least for our internal stuff SVN is just fine for the most part and I wouldn't gain anything. Anyhow, we are pretty windows addled from all angles, is there a reason we should go with git over mercurial?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2011 19:52
|
|
|
TortiseHg feels vastly more polished/cleaner/better than the GitExtensions and msysgit. The whole SSH key requirement for github is also a bit weird coming from a windows background. I'd put tortise svn as 2x ahead of tortiseHg these days. Bigger issue I've got with DCVS is that it is very, very hard for the non-developers to grok -- SVN was tricky enough, but through enough cerimonial beatings I actually got it to take. Changing the rules will be difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2011 14:38
|
|
|
No idea what to call it, but if the milestones hit a specified branch (copies are cheap) then you could use svn synch to mirror that branch pretty easily.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2011 20:03
|
|
|
The idiots I work with and my own stupidity are more of a danger to our operations than most hackers I can think of. Deploying backed by source control is a much better way to fly than not for us. YMMV.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2011 05:45
|
|
|
+1, this is essentially what I do for disqusssharp.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 14:48
|
|
|
I finally got sick of dealing with SVN, so I'm forcing HG down the designers throats today. Wish me luck.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 15:19
|
|
|
Lysidas posted:
Sweet, there is hope. Dilemma I'm facing is I can either teach them to merge or just have them work in the main integration branch. Any advices?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 00:41
|
|
|
Xik posted:. . . such a common problem these days that the problem would have been "solved" somehow. Especially with the market being flooded with useless applications which use things like the twitter, facebook, flikr API etc.... Just about every single one of those is a case where anything you want to make public is readable/scrapeable via some sort of api or RSS feed or something where each user would need his own key so it becomes a configuration option by default. PS: I'll add that managing things like .NET strong name key files is also problematic for OSS operations -- you'd really want it in the SCM system but that is really not the sort of thing that should be in the wild. Best way to manage it in that scenario is to have a separate, private VCS to handle those items. But that still could be a PITA to deal with for test dependencies and the like. wwb fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Oct 5, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 5, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Is source safe still a thing. Back in the late 90s we where using it at work and it was really underpowered and really easy to use. God help you when it gets confused however. Bitbucket has an issue tracker that isn't insanely awesome, but works well enough for a 2 man team and obviously integrates with their scm. Jenkins is cool but teamcity is cooler.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2011 14:56
|
|
|
Probably, Bryan O Sullivan wrote HG after all. Only thing I would add is http://hginit.com as a good way to get people going with HG. They just need to ignore the ads for sploskyware.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2011 19:19
|
|
|
I'm pretty fond of redmine, no reason it shouldn't work with git wherever it is hosted. Even easier might be using github's integrated tracking, it is pretty not bad if you don't need fancy workflows.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 15:46
|
|
|
I'm not quite following here -- with github you'd be able to give them a url too. And in almost any case they'd need an account with the tracker. You can make redmine take issues over email, but updates aren't so smooth if they can't login.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2011 16:50
|
|
|
Or if it needs to be local then run a VM, ubuntu works pretty good on Hyper-V if you are using that, everything runs good on VirtualBox. Or just say gently caress that local bullshit and use ed: github != bitbucket wwb fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Feb 2, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
Yea, I meant to say bitbucket. Fixed.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2012 22:45
|
|
|
I'm a pretty dyed in the wool MS guy and I won't use sharepoint or TFS because the products blow that much.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2012 21:36
|
|
|
Locked checkouts. Needing $8k + worth of licensing to work beyond TFS. Sharepoint integration. Requiring Visual Studio on my build server. I've heard TFS2010 is better, and the API might well be good. But it is managerware more than useful development tool.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
^^^Just got through working our art department through the move from SVN to HG. Actually went pretty well. Hard part is selling them on the concept of sane and rational version control. Getting them to use the tools is relatively easy. @Ithaqua: very reasonable retorts. I will concede I am perhaps a bit too negative on the product. On the other hand: quote:I've only used VSS and TFS (2008, 2010, and the beta of version 11) professionally, so I can't speak to the strengths and weaknesses of TFS over anything other than VSS. I'd disagree with that statement, though. With a minimum amount of dicking around, you can have source control and CI scripts running. If anything, I've seen the "managerware" aspects of it misused/underused/unused more than the source control aspect. I've got SCM and CI setup using SVN, git and HG and TeamCity in matters of minutes. Really issue tends to be the project not being CI-friendly rather than the SCM platform or CI server. TFS does do some things to make it easy, but the stuff it makes possible really isn't hard.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
Totally concur with Sailor_Spoon. I generally look to bitbucket first then github. Github has a bit more cache and a social angle but thinking about how I discover open source projects it really don't matter where they are as long as the source is hosted somewhere public. I'm not going to go browse projects on github per-se. PS: I should add I was just making the corporate "which DCVS host are you going with" decision the other month. Bitbucket won.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2012 16:44
|
|
|
That and humans don't deploy code to production. CI servers deploy code to production after the tests run.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2012 02:39
|
|
|
How I solve that problem is to set things up so any sort of deployment and such happens out of source control. If it aint checked in it don't exist. Personally I would also slap the piss out of Bill too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 14, 2012 20:37
|
|
|
^^^this. We had some idiot contractor who did a whole 6 month dev cycle in a tagged folder.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 29, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Or better yet fixing the app so it can choose the right environment so you don't have to fight this particular boogeyman.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 13:40
|
|
|
I'm pretty partial to this model: http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ Works good for teams of one or more.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2012 14:41
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:If you just want backups, can't you use dropbox? Because, I, at least would rather have a real SCM repo in the sky that I could use like that -- such as sharing the repo with others, using their visualization tools and other hoo ha. That and I don't trust dropbox at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 20:05
|
|
|
If you aren't completely sold on git mercurial is a bit easier -- it comes with a built-in web server so all he has to do is fire that up to share stuff. Another option would be to setup a VM running one of those bitnami pre-rolled machines, they have a SCM provider that I think gives you git, hg, svn and bazar in one box. Also note that bitbucket does HG and git and is free for private repos for under five users so you could probably use that without going through approval channels depending on if it was the expenditure that was needing approval.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2012 16:06
|
|
|
Not doing much on that scale, but typically we include binaries for our libraries with the projects living independently with their own CI stack. The libraries in question are very stable though, perhaps one change a year. If you are on TeamCity you can have it make a nuget feed for you making this very painless.Otto Skorzeny posted:We may be setting up integrated issue tracking & version control from scratch at work in the near future. Is there anywhere I should look that has a comparison of externally hosted systems for this (github, bitbucket, etc), and general reading I should do on this topic? For background I've used a mix of svn and git for personal stuff for years now, and a coworker has worked with cvs and perforce before at previous jobs, but neither of us has done much with bugtrackers and we have zero process in place at this time. I've done this pretty successfully with redmine. SVN integration is easy -- just point it at the server. DCVS is a little more involved as you need a local clone and you need a cron job to update it. But it worked out in our case -- we wanted a local copy of the repos anyhow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2012 13:11
|
|
|
Sounds like it is a "people not knowing how to do poo poo" issue -- no reason stuff should go missing except you've got git noobs at the help and/or people aren't pushing poo poo. That said, your branching model should look something like http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/ barring better input. There is also an extension that supports said model in git or hg, it is called git-flow or hg-flow.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
^^^Good points. If I were setting things up today, knowing DCVSes as well as I do now, I'd probaby look at more pull requests for workflow over branches. Now, I still think you need branching in the main repository depending on how many different production "versions" exist (we keep prod, qa and CI running for all projects). quote:Somewhere along the line, roughly half the poo poo for any given release goes missing, so the release fails functional and/or integration testing, so the developers send stuff directly to the infrastructure guys (DBA + applications engineers) to be manually integrated into the build. I missed this. This is really your problem. You need dev/integration in the SCM. No code changes should go except via SCM in the correct channels. Period.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
^^^Exactly. Basically all we've got is continuously deployed webapps with too many cooks in the kitchen so maintaining concurrent development with concurrent QA with concurrent production is key. We were doing the same general sort of workflow with SVN. Which made me a badass svn merger with no fear. But it is so much better with HG or git.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Did you write svn or something? Nope. But apparently I tried merges people thought not possible. It really helped being on a gigabit connection to the svn server, made blowing things away relatively painless when merges got fubar.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
Get the kid to work in a branch and encourage him to commit early and often. Committing bad changes is A-OK, pushing bad changes into default / master / trunk is where you run into trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2013 14:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:50 |
|
|
Under 10mb binaries I would just use a "normal" source control system. Probably would help to do an on-premisis install here. Then again I'm nuts and I've put video in SVN too.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2013 17:04
|
|