dvcs

问题 We are using Git and our workflow consists of a 'dev' and 'master' branch which lives on GitHub and each developer's local repository. No work is performed directly on 'master' or 'dev', but rather in local branches and only merges happen on 'dev' and later with 'master'. We do not push local branches to GitHub. For some reason developers' local branches show up in the "Network" view on GitHub and this clutters up the network diagram (I should point out that the branch itself doesn't exist

问题 Let's say I have the following workflow with Mercurial: stable (clone on server) default (branch) development (clone on server) default (branch) bugs (branch) developer1 (clone on local machine) developer2 (clone on local machine) developer3 (clone on local machine) feature1 (branch) developer3 (clone on local machine) feature2 (branch) developer1 (clone on local machine) developer2 (clone on local machine) My main line of development which is always in a release ready state is 'default'. So

问题 When I clone out a Mercurial repository it usually shows files as being modified when they have not. This can happen when I do the following steps; $ hg clone <url> $ cd project $ hg st .... large number of files with M at the start for modified $ hg diff .... no result. I think this is because the files have had their permissions changed in the process so it seems like the files are different since hg doesn't actually do a diff on each file when hg st is used. I know this can happen in git

问题 I converted a Subversion repository to Mercurial a few months back and I wound up leaving two meaningless gaps in my revision history. I'm trying to figure out if I can just splice over the gaps, but I haven't been able to get the tools to do precisely what I want. I had reorganized the Subversion repo twice in the early days of the project: first to convert a single project root to trunk/branches/tags layout, and then to add a second related project in a second root folder with it's own

问题 I have starting using Mercurial for my (our) versioning needs. I have now come to the point that I need to create a feature branch. However, now that I have started working on it -- and I try to push my changes, I keep getting a warning about new remote heads. That's stupid, I know that there will be new remote head(s) that's what a branch after all is? How am I supposed to create branches and push them without this problem, without using force push as it is surely not the right way to go,

问题 I have starting using Mercurial for my (our) versioning needs. I have now come to the point that I need to create a feature branch. However, now that I have started working on it -- and I try to push my changes, I keep getting a warning about new remote heads. That's stupid, I know that there will be new remote head(s) that's what a branch after all is? How am I supposed to create branches and push them without this problem, without using force push as it is surely not the right way to go,

问题 We're pretty happy with SVN right now, but Joel's tutorial intrigued me. So I was wondering - would it be feasible in our situation too? The thing is - our SVN repository is HUGE. The software itself has a 15 years old legacy and has survived several different source control systems already. There are over 68,000 revisions (changesets), the source itself takes up over 100MB and I cant even begin to guess how many GB the whole repository consumes. The problem then is simple - a clone of the

问题 We're pretty happy with SVN right now, but Joel's tutorial intrigued me. So I was wondering - would it be feasible in our situation too? The thing is - our SVN repository is HUGE. The software itself has a 15 years old legacy and has survived several different source control systems already. There are over 68,000 revisions (changesets), the source itself takes up over 100MB and I cant even begin to guess how many GB the whole repository consumes. The problem then is simple - a clone of the

问题 I'm trying to push my changes to a repo on my NAS. It's failing in a way I don't understand. The documentation states that by default push works only with fast-forward updates. Fair enough. So I do a git pull (my remote is called rubix ): D:\RoboCup\Dev\TinMan>git pull rubix master From ssh://rubix/volume1/git/TinMan * branch master -> FETCH_HEAD Already up-to-date. All looks well. Let's try pushing... D:\RoboCup\Dev\TinMan>git push rubix master To ssh://dnoakes@rubix/volume1/git/TinMan !

问题 I was wondering how people normally separate out the multiple comments in a single commit. Stars? Commas? Separate lines? Just wondering what you find to be the best. I'm using this now when I add comments via Emacs, but not sure I like it: Added error messaging Cleaned up sign-up UI Added recaptcha # Please enter the commit message for your changes. Lines starting # with '#' will be ignored, and an empty message aborts the commit. # # Committer: Conrad Chu <chuboy@conradlaptop.local> # # On