Essentially I have a course that I am doing and we have many small projects and websites we make. I am a beginner so please don't use any advanced topics or knowledge. I just need a way to organize my projects. I was thinking about have a new branch for each project but the problem with that is but I have these banners pop up. Another question is that when I create a new branch does it copy only from the most recent checked out branch? If so how do I change it to copy from main?
What would be the best way to organize my web projects on Github?
Related
I have a project that has gone through several iterations (for different clients) and will continue to go through more. By this point, I know that when I start a new instance of this project, there are certain things that need to be done to get the new project up and running.
Rather than create these issues by hand each time, I'd like to start new instances of this project with default issues. I've read through the redmine wiki, but don't see an explicit way to do this.
I know you can copy existing issues, and it is even possible to copy multiple issues at once. (in the issues page, select them and right click on one of them)
Maybe the easiest way is to copy the issues from a previous project and assign them to the new project.
I have tried several times in the past to make, say, a branch copy of MFC code which has a COM TypeLib. It has always been a registry nightmare. But the need is still there in that I want to be able to use an ordinary configuration management tool like SVN to make a branch so software can be delivered and development in the trunk can continue. COM and the registry have a hard time doing this for many reasons. What is needed is a list of vetted best-practice steps hammered out on a forum like this. Is there already experience out there? If not, is anyone interested in working with me on this? I have a starter list of steps.
I would like to reuse one installation of Sitecore every time I need to make code changes. I currently have a branch to fix a problem, but now I need to create another branch to fix another problem. The problems are in different websites so I need to keep the seperate branches. I really do not want to create another Sitecore installation for this second branch. Is there a way to "swap" out these solutions and "reuse" the same Sitecore installation?
Mark Ursino's comment about removing the code got me to thinking. Since the solution binded to the Sitecore installation resides in the Website folder, I'll map both solutions to somewhere arbitrary, like "Sitecore Dev Folder", and then map the branch I'm working in to the Website folder of the Sitecore installation. When I change the mapping, the solution will download from TFS into the Website folder (blowing away the existing solutuion.) And that's how I can achieve the "swapping" of solutions.
Yep, we need more info here to really answer the question.
But... in general, I would advise you not to do this. Creating a new Sitecore installation is a piece of cake with the installer, and not exactly resource intensive. You could have it use the same DB if necessary to make things easier.
Mixing two different branches with the same Sitecore instance... it seems inevitable that something would get "F'd up", to use the technical term.
Im new to GIT and dont know yet how much it will fit my needs, but it looks impressive.
I have a single webapp that i use for differents customers (django+javascript)
I plan to use GIT to handle these differents customers version as branches. Each customer can have custom files, folders and settings, improved versions... but the should share the same 'core'. We are a small team and suscribed a github account.
Is the branch the good way to handle this case ?
About the settings file, how would you proceed ? Would you .gitignore the customer specific settings file and add a settings.xml.sample file for example is the repo ?
Also, is there any way to prevent some files to be merged into master ? (but commited to the customer branch). For example, id like to save some customer data to the customer branch but prevent from to being commited to master.
Is the .gitignore file branch-specific ? YES
EDIT
After reading all your answers (thanks!) i decided to first refactor my django project structure to isolate the core and my differents apps in an apps subfolder. Doing this makes a cleaner project, and tweaking the .gitignore file makes it easy to use git branches to manage the differents customers and settings !
Ju.
In addition to cpharmston's answer, it sounds like you need to do some refactoring to separate out what is truly custom for each client and what isn't. Then you may consider adding additional repositories to track the customizations for each client (entirely new repos, not branches). Then your deployment can pull your "core" from your main repo, and the client-specific stuff from that repo.
I would not use branches to accomplish what you are trying to do.
In source control, branches are intended to be used for things that are meant to be merged back into trunk. For example, Alex Gaynor spent his summer of code working on a branch of Django that allows for support for multiple databases, with the goal of eventually merging it back into the Django trunk.
Checkouts (or clones, in Git's case) might better suit what you are trying to do. You would create a repo containing all of the project's base files (and .sample files, if you will), and clone the repo to all the various locations you wish to deploy the code. Then manually create the configuration and customization files at each deployment (take care not to add them to the repo). Whenever you update the code in the repo, run a pull on each deployment to update the code. Viola!
Other answers are correct that you'll be in the best shape for maintenance to the extent that you separate out your core code from the custom per-client code. However, I'll break from the crowd and say that if you're unable to do that (say because you need to add extra functionality to core code for a certain client), DVCS branches would work just fine for what you want to do. Though I'd probably recommend per-directory branches rather than in-repo branches for this purpose (git can do per-directory branches as well, it's nothing but a cloned repo that diverges).
I use hg, not git, but all of my Django projects are cloned from the same base "project template" repo that has utility scripts, a basic common set of INSTALLED_APPS, etc. This means when I make changes to that project template, I can easily merge those common updates into existing projects. This isn't exactly the same as what you're planning, but is similar. You will occasionally have to deal with merge conflicts, if you modify the same area of code in the core that you've already customized for a specific client.
Matthew Talbert is correct, you really need to separate the custom stuff from non-custom stuff. If you can refactor all the core code to be contained in one directory, your clients can use it as a read-only git submodule. The added benefit is that you lock them into an explicit version of the core code. This means that they would have to consciously update to a newer revision, which is what you want for production code.
After reading all your answers (thanks!) i decided to first refactor my django project structure to isolate the core and my differents apps in an apps subfolder. Doing this makes a cleaner project, and tweaking the .gitignore in the differents branches file makes it easy to use git branches to manage the differents customers and settings !
Let me first say I am aware of this faq for Mach-II, which discusses using application specific mappings as a third option when:
locating the framework in the server root is not possible and
creating a server wide mapping to the Mach-II framework directory is impossible
Using application specific mappings would also work for other ColdFusion frameworks with similar requirements (ColdSpring). Here is my issue however: my (I should say "their") production servers are all running ColdFusion MX7, and application specific mappings were introduced in ColdFusion 8. I most likely will be unable to do option 1 or 2 because they involve creating server wide changes that could conflict with other applications (I don't have a final word on this but I am preparing for that to be the case).
That said, is there anybody out there who was in similar bind and has done an option 4, in any ColdFusion version, or with any similar framework? The only option 4 I can think of is modifying the entire framework to change this hardcoded path, and even if that worked it would be time consuming and risky. I'm fairly sure that if there was a simple modification or other simple solution it would already be included in the framework (maybe it's included in version 1.8 of Mach-II and I don't know about it yet).
Any thoughts on solving this problem or even unorthodox setups with libraries that have specific path requirements would be appreciated. Any thoughts from Team Mach-II would especially appreciated...we're on the same team here Matt! ;-)
EDIT
Apparently, the ColdBox framework includes a refactor.xml ANT task which includes a target that refactors the ColdBox code to use a different absolute path as a base along with several other useful refactoring targets. So problem solved for ColdBox users.
Looking at the build.xml for Mach-II (1.6 and 1.8) I don't see any target in there that would allow me to refactor the code. I thought about creating a feature request ticket for such a task for Mach-II but frankly I don't think creating such an ANT task is a big priority for the MachII team since the need really only relates to either
a) users of ColdFusion versions below 8
b) someone who wants to use multiple Mach-II versions in the same application, a use I doubt they want to support
The ColdSpring code I have doesn't come with any ANT tasks at all, although I do have unit tests, and I bet if I poked around the SVN I'd find a few build scripts.
Using Ant tasks to refactor and retest the code, or the simpler (and sort of cop out) solution of creating a separate ColdFusion instance for the application are the best answers I've been able to come up with. I don't need this application to exist in the shared scope of other applications, so my first solution is going to be to try and get a dedicated CF instance for this application.
I'm also going to look at the ColdBox refactor.xml ANT task however and see if I can modify it to work generically to recognize and refactor CFC references with modified absolute paths. If I complete this task I'll be sure to post the code somewhere and edit create an answer to link to it. If anybody else wants to take a crack at that or help me out with it feel free.
Until then I'll leave this question open and see if someone comes up with a better solution.
Fusebox is not so strict, I think.
In XML mode (maybe I call this not 100% correcly, just mean using the Application.cfm) it's just proper include in index.cfm, something like:
<cfinclude template="fusebox5/fusebox5.cfm" />
In non-XML mode it will need proper extending in the root Application.cfc:
<cfcomponent extends="path.to.fusebox5.Application" output="false">
All you need is to know the path.
Perhaps you could create a symbolic link and let the operating system resolve the issue for you?
I've been playing with FW/1 lately, and while it may look like you need to add a mapping and extend org.corfield.framework, you can actually move the framework.cfc file into your web root and just extend="framework". It's dead simple, and gets you straight into a great framework with no mess and very little overhead.
It should be as simple as dropping the 'MachII' folder at the root of your domain (i.e. example.com/MachII). No mappings are required to use Mach-II if you just deploy at the root of the domain of your website.
Also:
Please file a ticket for the ANT task you mentioned in your question. Team Mach-II would love to have this issue logged:
Enter a new ticket on the Mach-II Trac
If you want to tackle an ANT task for us, we can get stuff like this incorporated into the builds faster than waiting to for a Team member to work on the ticket. Code submissions from the community are welcome and appreciated.
We don't keep an eye on Stack Overflow very often so we invite you to join our official community group at called "Mach-II for ColdFusion" at Google Groups. The Google Group is the best place to ask questions or comments like this if you want feedback from the Team.