After reading the builtin help, it seems to me that both commads can be used for modifying the workspace to match a certain revision. But I don't understand the differences between update and checkout. Please include some trivial workflows in your answer which show when update/checkout are appropriate.
First major difference is that if you have a remote url set, update will pull first latest artifacts from the remote repository.
Another difference is that if you have uncomitted changes, checkout will not run (unless you force it), whereas update will retain your changes and reapply them. With update you can therefore integrate changes from other users before committing.
So:
Update is what you need when you collaborate on a project, in order to prevent forks.
Checkout lets you deploy a particular version.
Related
How can I find out which tickets were closed between one build and the previous stable build? I'm trying to design a new build process, so I'm not set on particular tools yet. Which ones would let me see this sort of info in a dashboard, if any? Should I try to do this from a bug tracker, or from a build pipeline such as Jenkins or Bamboo, or somewhere else?
A possible set-up is to:
include the bug-tracker issue ID in your commit messages in your SCM ("[MYPROJECT-12923] add this new option in that nice feature")
launch your build with Jenkins that retrieves the source code from your SCM. Jenkins will show you a "Recent Changes" label linking to a page where you will find the commits that took place between last build and the current one. The commit messages will include the list of issues ID included in the build.
Note: that maybe does not answer your question perfectly because those commits could be intermediate one. Depends also on how granular are the commits.
In our DEV team, all the commits have the JIRA number in them (This is enforced by a plugin called TicketIt in Stash . There are various other plugins available for different repositories) . When we run a build , all commits that are part of the build are aggregrated by teamcity and displayed on a tab called issues . This solution that I am proposing works in teamcity and bamboo . I am sure thee would be some plugin with Jenkins for the same.
A hackier way would be to get the start time of the last build (x) and the current build(y) and get all JIRA tickets that were closed during this time via JIRA API. This might not be a foolproof method if your JIRA's are not always closed before a build
I want my team including myself to review commits of each other. None of commits should be pushed including mine into repo until it's not audited by other team member. I kind of lost in phabricator documentation, so i'm asking here, is there any way to setup that kind of workflow?
You can only restrict pushes to repositories hosted by Phabricator. If your repository is hosted elsewhere (like GitHub), Phabricator obviously can't prevent users from pushing to it.
To restrict pushes, create a new Herald rule (in the Herald application), like this:
Create a new "Commit Hook: Commit Content" rule.
Select "Global" as the rule type.
Then configure the rule like this:
When [all of] these conditions are met:
[Accepted Differential revision][does not exist]
Take these actions every time this rule matches:
[Block change with message][Review is required for all changes.]
You may want to use additional conditions like this, to run the rule only in certain repositories:
[Repository][is any of][ ... list of review-requied repositories ... ]
Or a condition like this, to let users bypass the rule by writing some string like "#bypass-review" in a message in an emergency:
[Body][does not contain][#bypass-review]
If you add a bypass like this, you can mention it in the rejection message.
It seems that you want a Pre-Commit Code Review. We set this up by doing the following (we use Git repos. If you use some other type, these steps may be different):
Setup a Herald rule
New rule for: Commit Hook: Commit Content
If you only want one repo, you can use Rule Type: Object, however, we used Global
For the conditions: we selected Accepted Differential revision and does not exist
Action: Block Change with message For the message, we refer them to an article that walks them through using Arcanist
Each project will need a .arcconfig with at least this line:
{
"phabricator.uri": "http://your.phabricator.url"
}
Day-day developers are going to have to use arcanist.
Developer creates a local branch.
Changes and commits code to the local branch.
When finished, run arc diff [base_branch_name]
This will create a Differential revision that will allow another developer to code review.
If changes are needed, the developer checks out his local branch, makes changes, makes commits, and re-runs arc diff [base_branch_name] to update the diff.
After all revisions are done, run arc land [local_branch_name] --onto [base_branch_name]
I hope this helps. Also, Phabricator developers hangout in freenode.net IRC channel called #phabricator. Come join the community; they have always been very helpful for me.
I'm trying to embed git describe-generated version info into AssemblyInfo.cs plus some label within ASP.NET website.
I already tried using git-vs-versionino but this assumes Git executable on PATH. However default install of msysgit on Windows does not set this up; it uses git bash. This caused problems.
Now I am looking for a way to utilize libgit2sharp library (for zero external dependencies) to use as build number generator. However this library has no describe command...
Thanks!
git-describe is a UI feature that nobody has implemented in the library or bindings yet (or at least nobody's contributed it), but you can do it yourself fairly easily.
You get a list of the tags and what commits they point to, do a walk down the commits and count how many steps it took to get to a commit that you have in the list you built. This already gives you the information you need. If the steps were zero, then your description would be the tag name only; otherwise you append the number of steps and the current commit's id to it.
There's a work in progress libgit2 pull request that proposes an implementation of git-describe functionalities.
See #1066 for more information.
It's not finished yet. Make sure to subscribe to it in order to be notified of its future progress.
Once it's done, it should be quite easy to bind it and make it available through LibGit2Sharp.
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
There is another thread here on StackOverflow, dealing wih how often to commit changes to source control. I want to put that in the context of using a DVCS like git or mercurial.
How often and when do you commit?
Do you only commit changes when they
build correctly?
How often and when do you push your changes (or file a pull request or similar)?
How do you approac developing a complex feature / doing a complex refactoring requiring many places to be touched? Are "private commits" that won't build ok? When finished, do you push them also to the master repository or do you bundle all your changes into a single changeset before pushing?
It depends on the nature of the branch ("line of development") you are working on.
The main advantage with those DVCS (git or mercurial) is the ease you can:
branch
merge
So:
1/ How often and when do you commit?
2/ Do you only commit changes when they build correctly?
As many time as necessary on a private branch (for instance, if it compiles).
The practice to only commit if unit tests pass is a good one, but should only apply to an "official" (as in "could be published or 'pushed'") branch: in your private branch, you merge a gazillon times if you need to.
The only thing is: do some merge --interactive to reorganize your many commits on your private branch, before replaying them on your main development branch, where you can pass some tests.
3/ How often and when do you push your changes (or file a pull request or similar)?
Publication is another matter and should be done with a "clear" history (coherent merges, representing a content which compile and pass some tests).
The branch you publish should be one where the history is never rewritten, always updated.
The pace of the publications depends on the nature of the remote branch and of the population pulling that branch. For instance, if it is for another team, you could push quite often. If it is for a system-wide integration testing team, you will push a lot less often.
4/ How do you approach developing a complex feature / doing a complex refactoring requiring many places to be touched? Are "private commits" that won't build ok? When finished, do you push them also to the master repository or do you bundle all your changes into a single changeset before pushing?
See 1. and 2.: patch first in your own private branch, then reorganize your commits on an official (published) patch branch. One single commit is not always the best option if the patch involves several different "activities" (or bug fix).
I'd commit changes to my DVCS (my own topic or task branch) very, very often, this way I can use it not only for "delivering changes" but also to help me while I work: like "why this was working 5 minutes ago and it's not working anymore?" If you commit often you can just run a diff.
Also, a technique I found very, very good is using it to "self-document refactors". Let me explain: if you've to do a big refactor on a topic branch and then review the change as a whole (having modified a nice set of files), you'd probably get lost. But, suppose you checkin on every "intermediate step" and document it with a comment, then you're creating some sort of "movie" of your own changes helping to describe what you've done! Huge for reviewers.
I commit a lot; when adding functions or even reformatting my sources.
I use git and do most of my work on non-shared branches. And when I've added enough little changes that count as a block, I use git rebase to collect the smaller related changes into larger chunks and commit that to the main branches.
This way, I have all the advantages of committed code that I can go backwards or forwards in, but I don't have to commit all my mistakes, and bactracks to the main history.
How often and when do you commit?
Very frequently. It could be as much as a few times in a hour, if the changes I've made work and make up a nice patch. Or it could be every few hours, depending on whether I am spending longer debugging things, or experimenting with risky changes.
Do you only commit changes when they build correctly?
Yes, almost always. I can't think of a reason right to check in code that didn't build correctly. There's plenty of reasons you might check in code that doesn't run correctly (in a branch) though.
How often and when do you push your changes (or file a pull request or similar)?
Normally only when a feature is complete and ready for integration testing. That means it has passed unit tests and other relevant tests, and the code/patch is clean enough that I consider it ready for review.
How do you approac developing a complex feature / doing a complex refactoring requiring many places to be touched? Are "private commits" that won't build ok? When finished, do you push them also to the master repository or do you bundle all your changes into a single changeset before pushing?
I would create a named branch for the feature (which would have traceability across design docs and Issue Tracking system). Commits that don't build would only really be ok on a private branch as an intermediate step, but would still be exceptional. Currently I don't rebase and merge the entire feature branch into a single changeset, though it is something I'm looking at doing in future. Changes are only pushed when appropriate tests are all passed.
I follow this kind of flow
alt text http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/3272/versioncontrolsysbestpr.png
(Here is the original image url)
I guess this says pretty everything. Basically I would do a check-in after implementing a full working use case / user story (depends on your software process). The major important thing is that you check-in things that work in the sense that they compile. Never break the build!
Doing a commit after each user story/use case has the advantage that you have a better tracking of past versions and undoing changes is much easier.