dvcs

Our company has a large codebase in VB6, and we currently use VSS which, for all that we hate about it, at least integrates into the VB6 IDE. My own team, which is using .NET, are now looking into alternative SCMs like my personal favourite, Git. With Git Extensions , it seems we will be able to integrate Git commands into the Visual Studio IDE pretty well. However, the question has been asked: could Git be used for our VB6 codebase too? Of course I assume the files themselves would work fine in git repositories, but no doubt developers would complain if they had to use the command-line to do

So, I'm fairly new to git and I've after a bit of reading around over the last couple of weeks I've read a few people saying that the master branch shouldn't be changed but rather branched from and then merged to. I'm happy enough to work with branches but was wondering for the reasons behind not working on the master branch? i guess the usual reasoning is, that the master branch should represent the 'stable' history of your code. use branches to experiment with new features, implement them, and when they have matured enough you can merge them back to master. that way code in master will

I think I already know the answer to this but thought I would ask anyway: We have a file that got added to a Mercurial repository with sensitive information in it. Is there any way to remove that file along with its change history without removing the whole repo? No, you can't. Read the changes that should have never been section of the mercurial red book about it; and particularly the what about sensitive changes that escape subsection, which contains this paragraph: Mercurial also does not provide a way to make a file or changeset completely disappear from history, because there is no way to

I'd like to hear from people who are using distributed version control (aka distributed revision control, decentralized version control) and how they are finding it. What are you using, Mercurial, Darcs, Git, Bazaar? Are you still using it? If you've used client/server rcs in the past, are you finding it better, worse or just different? What could you tell me that would get me to jump on the bandwagon? Or jump off for that matter, I'd be interested to hear from people with negative experiences as well. I'm currently looking at replacing our current source control system (Subversion) which is

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

I've renamed a couple of files using git mv , used git stash , had a quick look at HEAD (without changing it) then did git stash pop to get the whole lot back again. My moves had disappeared from the commit list, so I redid them with git rm and the commit message claimed git had spotted the rename was a rename. So I thought no more of it. But now, post-commit, I can't get at the history of the moved files! Here's what git says about the commit in question: ~/projects% git log --summary commit de6e9fa2179ae17ec35a5c368d246f19da27f93a Author: brone Date: Wed Dec 8 22:37:54 2010 +0000 Moved R

I've been using Mercurial for my own personal projects for a while, and I love it. My employer is considering a switch from CVS to SVN, but I'm wondering whether I should push for Mercurial (or some other DVCS) instead. One wrinkle with Mercurial is that it seems to be designed around the idea of having a single repository per "project". In this organization, there are dozens of different executables, DLLs, and other components in the current CVS repository, hierarchically organized. There are a lot of generic reusable components, but also some customer-specific components, and customer

We now have a "stiging" branch, where "staging" seems to be a far better semantic fit. What's a good strategy for handling this? Update to the stiging branch and create a new branch off of it. Then close the old branch. In summary: hg update stiging hg branch staging hg commit -m"Changing stiging branch to staging." hg update stiging hg commit --close-branch -m"This was a typo; use staging instead." hg push --new-branch alexis For future readers: With the rebase extension, you can make a new branch with the same parent as stiging and move the entire branch history to it, like this: hg update

Our team uses TortoisHg 2.0.5 on Windows and after refreshing file list in working directory it sometimes (at least once a day :(( ) shows a list of unmodified files as modified. Manual comparison doesn't show any changes in code, line breaks are also equal. Reverting of these "fantom" files causes no result. There a two way how we deal with this problem: Turning off eol extension and reverting the files, Manually removing the files and update them from the head revision. It's really annoying to do this every day (twice ...three times... per day), especially on large changeset! Please help to