Merge Into Trunk : Add-api-reserve-sip-for-mac-bug-1387239 : Code

Are integral to building software. They combine your repository of project files with a history of all your code changes, making it easy to edit and understand your code over time. The main benefit of using a version control system is that it keeps your team’s workflows organized as they work through various types of releases. With one in place, team members can easily research, track, and undo code. They can work on the same code simultaneously without code conflicts.

1. Merge Into Trunk : Add-api-reserve-sip-for-mac-bug-1387239 : Codes

And they track who made what changes when and why. But before you implement one into your team’s workflow, you need to figure out which version control system is right for you. While most options out there have similar benefits, their differences are important.

Suppose, you have a branch feature that you'd like to merge back into the trunk. If there have been no changes to the trunk since you've been working on your branch, you can simply follow the steps below to merge your branch to trunk ( branch -> trunk ).

SVN version control systems With all version control systems, project files sit on a server where you push your files to when you have completed your work on your local machine. However, deciding whether to use a centralized version control system (like SVN) or a distributed version control system (like Git) will affect how you commit changes. Remember, not all version control systems fit all teams and all needs. A method that works perfectly for one company may be entirely wrong for your team. To determine which system to use, you need to look at how each system works.

SVN Also known as Subversion, SVN represents the most popular centralized version control system on the market. With a centralized system, all files and historical data are stored on a central server. And developers commit their changes directly to that central server repository.

Work is comprised of three parts:. Trunk: The trunk is the hub of your current, stable code and product. It only includes tested, unbroken code. Branches: Here is where you house new code and features. Using a copy of the trunk code, team members conduct research and development in the branch.

Doing so allows each team member to work on the enhanced features without disrupting each other’s progress. Tags: Consider tags a duplicate of a branch at a given point in time. Tags aren’t used during development, but rather during deployment after the branch’s code is finished. Marking your code with tags make it easy to review and, if necessary, revert your code. Here’s how this process looks: to create a new feature you first branch the code from the trunk, i.e. Take an exact copy of the trunk and place it into a new folder within the branches area. Then you work on your feature.

When you’re done, you merge your changes back into the trunk. The benefit of branching is the ability to make commits into the branch without breaking the trunk.

You only merge into the trunk when your code is error-free. This keeps your trunk stable. And users generally appreciate how easy it is to use and understand SVN.

However, working on one central server means there is a single point of failure. If there is an error, it can destroy all builds. Limited offline access is also a frequent point of complaint. Git While centralized systems were the version control system of choice for nearly a decade, has surpassed them in recent years. Unlike SVN, Git utilizes multiple repositories: a central repository and a series of local repositories.

Local repositories are exact copies of the central repository complete with the entire history of changes. The Git workflow is similar to SVN, but with an extra step: to create a new feature, you take an exact copy of the central repository to create your local repository on your local machine (you can think of this as your “local trunk”). Then you work on your local repository exactly as you would in SVN by creating new branches, tags, etc. When you’re done, you merge your branches into your local repository (i.e. Local trunk). When you’re ready to merge into the central repository, you push your changes from your local repository to the central repository. Many people prefer Git for version control for a few reasons:.

It’s faster to commit. Because you commit to the central repository more often in SVN, network traffic slows everyone down. Whereas with Git, you’re working mostly on your local repository and only committing to the central repository every so often. No more single point of failure. With SVN, if the central repository goes down or some code breaks the build then no other developers can commit their code until the repository is fixed.

With Git, each developer has the own repository, so it doesn’t matter if the central repository is broken. Developers can continue to commit code locally until the central repository has been fixed, and then they can push their changes. It’s available offline. Unlike SVN, Git can work offline, allowing your team to continue working without losing features if they lose connection. Teams also opt for Git is open source and cross-platform, so support is available for all platforms, multiple sets of technologies, languages, and frameworks. And it’s supported by virtually all operating systems. There is one con teams find frustrating: the ever-growing complexing of history logs.

Because developers take extra steps when merging, history logs of each issue can become dense and difficult to decipher. This can potentially make analyzing your system harder.

In conclusion Whether your team uses Git or SVN, you’ll benefit from being able to track and review your code for better releases. Just be sure to choose an that supports your choice, so you’re able to properly track that work over time. If you’re in the market for issue tracking software, providing your team the ability to set up private repositories, propose and compare code changes, leave in-line comments on code, and document your work with wikis. You can try it yourself with our; no credit card required.

Subversion Best Practices Subversion Best Practices This is a quick set of guidelines for making the best use of Subversion in your day-to-day software development work. Use a sane repository layout There are many ways to lay out your repository. Because branches and tags are ordinary directories, you'll need to account for them in your repository structure.

The Subversion project officially recommends the idea of a 'project root', which represents an anchoring point for a project. A 'project root' contains exactly three subdirectories: /trunk, /branches, and /tags. A repository may contain only one project root, or it may contain a number of them. Book reference:. Commit logical changesets When you commit a change to the repository, make sure your change reflects a single purpose: the fixing of a specific bug, the addition of a new feature, or some particular task. Your commit will create a new revision number which can forever be used as a 'name' for the change.

You can mention this revision number in bug databases, or use it as an argument to svn merge should you want to undo the change or port it to another branch. Book reference:.

Use the issue-tracker wisely Try to create as many two-way links between Subversion changesets and your issue-tracking database as possible:. If possible, refer to a specific issue ID in every commit log message. When appending information to an issue (to describe progress, or to close the issue) name the revision number(s) responsible for the change. Track merges manually ### OBSOLETE RECOMMENDATION ### When committing the result of a merge, be sure to write a descriptive log message that explains what was merged, something like: Merged revisions 3490:4120 of /branches/foobranch to /trunk. Book reference:,.

Understand mixed-revision working copies Your working copy's directories and files can be at different 'working' revisions: this is a deliberate feature which allows you to mix and match older versions of things with newer ones. But there are few facts you must be aware of:. After every svn commit, your working copy has mixed revisions. The things you just committed are now at the HEAD revision, and everything else is at an older revision.

Certain commits are disallowed:. You cannot commit the deletion of a file or directory which doesn't have a working revision of HEAD.

You cannot commit a property change to a directory which doesn't have a working revision of HEAD. svn update will bring your entire working copy to one working revision, and is the typical solution to the problems mentioned in point #2.

Book reference:. Be patient with large files A nice feature of Subversion is that by design, there is no limit to the size of files it can handle. Files are sent 'streamily' in both directions between Subversion client and server, using a small, constant amount of memory on each side of the network. Of course, there are a number of practical issues to consider.

Merge Into Trunk : Add-api-reserve-sip-for-mac-bug-1387239 : Codes

While there's no need to worry about files in the kilobyte-sized range (e.g. Typical source-code files), committing larger files can take a tremendous amount of both time and space (e.g.

Files that are dozens or hundreds of megabytes large.) To begin with, remember that your Subversion working copy stores pristine copies of all version-controlled files in the.svn/text-base/ area. This means that your working copy takes up at least twice as much disk space as the original dataset. Beyond that, the Subversion client follows a (currently unadjustable) algorithm for committing files:. Copies the file to.svn/tmp/ (can take a while, and temporarily uses extra disk space)).

Performs a binary diff between the tmpfile and the pristine copy, or between the tmpfile and an empty-file if newly added. (can take a very long time to compute, even though only a small amount of data might ultimately be sent over the network). Sends the diff to the server, then moves the tmpfile into.svn/text-base/ So while there's no theoretical limit to the size of your files, you'll need to be aware that very large files may require quite a bit of patient waiting while your client chugs away.

You can rest assured, however, that unlike CVS, your large files won't incapacitate the server or affect other users. Know when to create branches This is a hotly debated question, and it really depends on the culture of your software project. Rather than prescribe a universal policy, we'll describe three common ones here. The Never-Branch system (Often used by nascent projects that don't yet have runnable code.). Users commit their day-to-day work on /trunk.

Occasionally /trunk 'breaks' (doesn't compile, or fails functional tests) when a user begins to commit a series of complicated changes. Pros: Very easy policy to follow. New developers have low barrier to entry. Nobody needs to learn how to branch or merge. Cons: Chaotic development, code could be unstable at any time. A side note: this sort of development is a bit less risky in Subversion than in CVS.

Because Subversion commits are atomic, it's not possible for a checkout or update to receive a 'partial' commit while somebody else is in the process of committing. The Always-Branch system (Often used by projects that favor heavy management and supervision.). Each user creates/works on a private branch for every coding task.

When coding is complete, someone (original coder, peer, or manager) reviews all private branch changes and merges them to /trunk. Pros: /trunk is guaranteed to be extremely stable at all times.

Cons: Coders are artificially isolated from each other, possibly creating more merge conflicts than necessary. Requires users to do lots of extra merging. The Branch-When-Needed system (This is the system used by the Subversion project.). Users commit their day-to-day work on /trunk.

Rule #1: /trunk must compile and pass regression tests at all times. Committers who violate this rule are publicly humiliated. Rule #2: a single commit (changeset) must not be so large so as to discourage peer-review.

Rule #3: if rules #1 and #2 come into conflict (i.e. It's impossible to make a series of small commits without disrupting the trunk), then the user should create a branch and commit a series of smaller changesets there. This allows peer-review without disrupting the stability of /trunk. Pros: /trunk is guaranteed to be stable at all times. The hassle of branching/merging is somewhat rare. Cons: Adds a bit of burden to users' daily work: they must compile and test before every commit.