Git Book - Basic Branching and Merging. Let’s go through a simple example of branching and merging with a workflow that you might use in the real world. You’ll follow these steps: Do work on a web site. Create a branch for a new story you’re working on. Do some work in that branch. At this stage, you’ll receive a call that another issue is critical and you need a hotfix. You’ll do the following: Revert back to your production branch. Basic Branching First, let’s say you’re working on your project and have a couple of commits already (see Figure 3-10). Figure 3-10. You’ve decided that you’re going to work on issue #53 in whatever issue-tracking system your company uses. .
$ git checkout -b iss53 Switched to a new branch "iss53" This is shorthand for: $ git branch iss53 $ git checkout iss53 Figure 3-11 illustrates the result. Figure 3-11. You work on your web site and do some commits. . $ vim index.html $ git commit -a -m 'added a new footer [issue 53]' Figure 3-12. . $ git checkout master Switched to branch "master" Figure 3-14. Figure 3-15. Intro to Distributed Version Control (Illustrated) | BetterExpla. Traditional version control helps you backup, track and synchronize files. Distributed version control makes it easy to share changes.
Done right, you can get the best of both worlds: simple merging and centralized releases. Distributed? What’s wrong with regular version control? Nothing — read a visual guide to version control if you want a quick refresher. Sure, some people will deride you for using an “ancient” system. Centralized VCS emerged from the 1970s, when programmers had thin clients and admired “big iron” mainframes (how can you not like a machine with a then-gluttonous 8 bits to a byte?). Centralized is simple, and what you’d first invent: a single place everyone can check in and check out. This model works for backup, undo and synchronization but isn’t great for merging and branching changes people make. Sure, merging is always “possible” in a centralized system, but it’s not easy: you often need to track the merge yourself to avoid making the same change twice.
You have: Welcome - Bazaar Version Control. Mercurial. Git - Fast Version Control System. Version Control with Subversion. Monotone: distributed version control. Decentralized Revision Control System. Open Source Development With CVS. Copyright © 1999, 2000 Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> This document is free software; you can redistribute and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. This document is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
See the GNU General Public License for more details. This manual describes how to use and administer CVS (Concurrent Versions System). This is version 1.21 of this manual. Top Introduction This is a set of free, online chapters about using CVS (Concurrent Versions System) for collaboration and version control. These chapters are excerpted from a larger work called Open Source Development With CVS (published by The Coriolis Group, ISBN 1-57610-490-7). These chapters are released under the GNU General Public License. An Overview of CVS pserver. Cvsplot. A CVS Book. HomePage - Kwiki. Darc. Version Control with Subversion.
Benefits from a real world switch from CVS to darcs: Introductio. Background: Our usage model and reasons for switching Each developer had their own code copy of the repository. We used an "alphasite" for internal quality reviews, a "betasite" for client work reviews, and a production copy for the live website. We weren't trying to maintain branches in CVS. I was aware they are one of the hassles of using CVS. If we wanted to share code with each other, or update the alphasite, the betasite or or the production site, we would commit to CVS HEAD and update the desired location. This worked OK, with some coordination among ourselves about when it was a good time to commit or update and when it wasn't. The problem was the exceptional cases: While some work was being previewed on the alphasite or betasite, a high-priority request would come in that should be fast-tracked to production, ahead of the work that was already committed.
We handled that with a little bit of luck and a fair amount of headache. I felt there should be a better way. Easy cherry picking.