![]() ![]() Apparently something has gone wrong in that process. The normal process is to just run the installer and everything just works. We'll (yes, I work for SmartBear) be happy to help you work out your path issues, but there's not enough information in this question to fix your issue. That can be trickier.Īs for b) the only thing I would suggest is emailing SmartBear support directly. In this environment, you would have to ensure that all the changes that had been pushed are reviewed before you cut a release. That is probably slightly less efficient, but could still work. If instead you have a single integration branch where people are checking in directly, you would want to review all pushes to that branch. Obviously all hotfixes must also be reviewed along with the merges into master. Individual commits on feature branches may not make sense to review. In this case, you may want to review changes that are being merged into develop. For example, let's assume a repository structure that looks like the one discussed in this article on Git repository layouts. If you want to do post-push reviews, the ideal workflow depends heavily on your repository structure. DVCS's are nicer in this environment (when compared to traditional SCMs) because they have built-in functionality for saving your local changes and getting your workspace back so you can work on something else. We prefer to do "pre-commit" reviews, which in the world of DVCS really means "pre-push". It depends on how you have your repository structure and what you are trying to accomplish. Note: This is a fairly simple process (and relatively new for us), so it may not work for everyone, and there may be some design bugs that we haven't run into yet. In essence, this provides the developer with a pretty streamlined process (all they have to do is an hg push) and completely automates the creation of the code review (and uploading additional changed files to the review), while ensuring that all code gets reviewed. Mercurial mercurial Mercurial BugzillaTortoiseHg mercurial Mercurial mercurial Mercurial mercurial Mercurial HG. However, if there were any new changesets (or the code review isn't complete), the hook exits with a non-zero status code (causing Mercurial to roll back the transaction) and outputs a friendly message on Standard Error explaining to the developer that the code review needs to be finished. If all of the changes were found in the database (ie, they've all been added to the code review), then we verify that the status of the code review is Complete.If we've seen some (but not all) of the changesets, we run the (Code Collaborator) command to attach the new changesets to the existing review and record these new changesets in the database.If this is the first time any of these changesets have been seen, then we create a new Code Review (using the Code Collaborator command line), and then record these changesets in the database with that code review's ID.(The table matches the hash of a changeset with a code review ID). It then queries a database we built to see if those changesets were included in a code review. The hook runs and grabs a list of all the changesets included in the transaction (by running HG log).The developer initiates a push to the stable repository (yes, this really is the first step). ![]() We leverage the fact that when this hook runs, it can see the repository as-if the code changes were permanent, yet also gives us the ability to prevent the push. Tôi li nh lp trình viên tip theo, nhng vi thit lp ca tôi, gn nh tt c sc mnh ca Mercurial là (sau khi nhn c mt thit b u cui t trên xung vi mt phím) hg cmd -a' vài params ' 20 nhn phím.Ngay c vi tc ánh máy khiêm tn, chi phí ca nó cng rt nh. ![]() To enforce the code review, we wrote a pretxnchangegroup hook (documented in the HG Book). (This is significant because we also require that our stable repositories contain the code that is currently running in production, differeing only by pending code promotions.) We require that code be reviewed before it is pushed into a stable repository. We separate stable repositories from development repositories. Likewise, when the development cycle is complete, code gets pushed into the appropriate repository there also. When developers want to "check out" code, they go to this server and clone from the repositories there. We keep a central definitive copy of all our repositories on one server. Share this page Bookmarks skype 4.3.0.37 virtualbox-4.3 4.3.40-110317 steam 1:1.0.0.75 google-chrome-beta 1.We actually went through nearly the exact same thing at my company recently. ![]() "This will increase WebGL performance, reduce resource consumption and make our life as developers easier going forward." /0/swi… ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |