This is essentially the opposite issue as Manual Merge Only on GIT extensions.
Git extensions used to automatically merge for me when necessary on each pull. For some reason now it doesn't, and I have to use the Git Bash to pull there manually (and in that instance it will automatically merge).
What's going on? I don't see a .gitattributes file in the repo.
In the Pull dialog, there are three radio buttons for setting the merge options. Did you check them?
Once I accidentally set this to Do not merge, maybe that's your problem, too.
Related
I've already deleted a local branch without deleting its upstream branch on a GitHub.
Is there a way to delete the remote branch in a GitAhead?
In Sourcetree you just right click on the remote branch and choose delete.
Unfortunately no, GitAhead doesn't have an easy way to push a delete except for the little convenience checkmark when you delete the local branch. You would have to resort to the command line or doing it on your remote host.
This is a major design flaw in Git (in my opinion). The branching concept in mercurial is much more sane (no detached heads, named branches, no ability to delete branches - at least not if it was published once).
think about it: it is a versioning control system. What you want is to preserve and document development history. Someone has created and published a branch for purpose. So even if git allows manipulation of the repository much more than mercurial (and here most abilities are disabled by default!), just do not use it. leave the branch! Its OK. Its the way it should be. Anyway, as git is lean here, its just a pointer (not a real named branch like in hg), it does not take much space.
I tried svn2git to test a migration from svn to git, like this:
svn2git https://my-svn.net/project/ --username $USERNAME
I execute this command where git is installed. I perform this in /home/myuser/svn2git/. After some waiting the execution of the commands end:
...
A src/xx
A src/xx
A src/xx
A src/xx
I do not see the repository getting downloaded to the location where i am running this command from. After the command runs fine, If i commit and push to GIT i do not see anything getting committed. I see .git folder getting created and on the display with verbose i can see all my history.
Can anyone tell me what is incorrect here?
For a one-time migration git-svn is not the right tool for conversions of repositories or parts of a repository. It is a great tool if you want to use Git as frontend for an existing SVN server, but for one-time conversions you should not use git-svn, but svn2git which is much more suited for this use-case.
There are plenty tools called svn2git, the probably best one is the KDE one from https://github.com/svn-all-fast-export/svn2git. I strongly recommend using that svn2git tool. It is the best I know available out there and it is very flexible in what you can do with its rules files.
The svn2git tool you used (the nirvdrum one) is based on git-svn and just tries to work around some of the quirks and drawbacks. In thus that svn2git tool suffers from most of the same drawbacks.
You will be easily able to configure svn2gits rule file to produce the result you want from your current SVN layout, including any complex histories that might exist and including producing several Git repos out of one SVN repo or combining different SVN repos into one Git repo cleanly in one run if you like and also excluding any paths or branches or tags you don't to have migrated, though I'm always crying a little if someone discards code history which is precious.
If you are not 100% about the history of your repository, svneverever from http://blog.hartwork.org/?p=763 is a great tool to investigate the history of an SVN repository when migrating it to Git.
Even though git-svn or the nirvdrum svn2git is easier to start with, here are some further reasons why using the KDE svn2git instead of git-svn is superior, besides its flexibility:
the history is rebuilt much better and cleaner by svn2git (if the correct one is used), this is especially the case for more complex histories with branches and merges and so on
the tags are real tags and not branches in Git
you can generate annotated tags instead of lightweight tags
with git-svn the tags contain an extra empty commit which also makes them not part of the branches, so a normal fetch will not get them until you give --tags to the command as by default only tags pointing to fetched branches are fetched also. With the proper svn2git tags are where they belong
if you changed layout in SVN you can easily configure this with svn2git, with git-svn you will loose history eventually
with svn2git you can also split one SVN repository into multiple Git repositories easily
or combine multiple SVN repositories in the same SVN root into one Git repository easily
the conversion is a gazillion times faster with the correct svn2git than with git-svn
You see, there are many reasons why git-svn is worse and the KDE svn2git is superior. :-)
I've setup a build process using Gruntjs, but don't want anyone to be able to store the output (all contained in a build/ directory) in source control. Don't Repeat Yourself n such.
I've currently got a pre-commit hook setup that cleans the build/ directory and fails the commit if there are any unstaged files (I also stash then unstash so intentionally unstaged files won't interfere with this check).
It would be more user friendly to fail at the point a build file is added: git add build/.... But I can't seem to find an example commit hook for git add. I looked at http://git-scm.com/book/ch7-3.html and http://githooks.com/.
Is this possible? If not, can you think of an improvement over my current setup?
One of those moments where the answer comes to you as you're typing it out.
I can simply setup my .gitignore to forget build/, then also use the clean in the precommit hook to double check that no build files were added.
recently, i upgraded to Flex Hero 4.5 and created a new workspace. Then, i imported a project from the former workspace and started working. when i tried to upload the project from the new workspace to codereview, i got the error message: could not guess version control system. Are you in a working copy directory? How does one resolve this issue?
thanks
I have read somewhere that i need to checkout my svn but i thought that you only checkout when you want to get a folder/file from the svn.
Sounds like you've got a bit of a mess unfortunately. Hopefully you're not in the habit of doing a ton of changes without checking in. I would suggest you:
Back up your latest changes to a safe location
Check out the project from SVN into your new workspace (which is what you should have done initially) - creating a brand new project folder
Merge the changes you've made into the now-correctly-versioned copy of your project (you could do this by just copying files from the "latest"/project backup folder overwriting the SVN versioned files, but if you do--do NOT overwrite any .svn folders). You could also use a tool such as WinMerge or WinDiff to find differences between the two projects (of course ignoring .svn folders).
If you have a small number of changes it shouldn't be bad, but if there's a lot, you might want to follow SolarBear's branch suggestion, if WinMerge isn't going to cut it.
If I understand correctly your latest comment, you did a svn export on your code. The export command, as the doc mentions, creates a "clean" directory tree, i.e. without the .svn directory. So basically, these are files not controlled by SVN; also, you lose all the history of your files. The best way would have been, I think, to do a checkout in your new workspace and then work from there. It could take some time, but it's much easier to manage afterwards.
One possible way to make this work would be to checkout a clean copy your code somewhere safe and then merge your changes into this clean copy. However, if your trunk or branch changed a lot in the meantime, this could be very, very tedious. I could then suggest to branch your trunk, checkout that new branch, slowly merge your changes into that branch and when you're done and everything's working OK, merge the branch back into the trunk.
Our code is in SVN. We develop using Visual Studio and the AnkhSVN plugin.
Having used VSS before SVN I was used to the idea of locking files so other users know not to edit it while you are (in fact I thought this was the main point of source control, to prevent lost data from these conflicts).
I've been told this rarely happens and cases where you can't work because another dev is locking you out are more frequent (which sounds like a principle that might only apply to a certain subset of dev projects). But anyway, SVN is better and we're using it.
So when I do edit a file, and go to check it in, and find out the other user has edited it too, what do I actually do?
Surely there's a better way than saving a copy of my file, reverting changes, updating it from server, then merging my changes back in with winmerge? When I right-click the file and click 'merge' I'm told I should update first, so that's obviously not what I need.
.
Update: partial answer
OK, it sounds like I just hit update, then SVN merges non-conflicting changes automatically, and should let AnkhSVN know about any conflicting changes to allow some kind of resolution. Does anyone know how this works in AnkhSVN - what I'd actually do?
(if not I'll try it myself, accept the current top answer and update this question with the second half for posterity).
Actually, that's exactly what you need.
Edit: Clarification, what you need to do is just hit that update. You don't need to make a separate copy, revert, etc. Updating from the repository will merge those changes with your own.
When you do the update, where you have local changes to a file that has also been changed in the repository, SVN will merge the file in the repository with your local file, preserving both sets of changes.
In effect, it should do what you would do with Winmerge automatically.
If the changes are conflicting, typically that they occur within the same lines, there will be a merge conflict, which has to be resolved. Not knowing AnkhSvn, I don't know what it will do in this case, but it should have some means of fixing things. Usually it involves looking over 3 files (your local file, the repository file, and the result of a successful merge) where you pick each part you want to keep from the two changed versions of the file.
After you've updated your local copy, merged and fixed any conflicts, you commit as usual.
It´s not an direct answer to your question, but I would recommened to use SVN-Monitor in addition to AnkhSVN or any other Subversion client like TortoiseSVN.
With it you can watch your repository and will be notified by changes in your repository. So you can see what other devs did in the repository and probably see if your commit will conflict with other checkins or if you can update your local copy without any effect/conflict