I a writing a little webapp, which allows the users to browse through a Visual SVN server. I would like to add an online editor like github in this webapp, so users can edit the files online, leave a message and the changes appear in the repository.
For that I need to checkout the files locally. My idea was to check them in a mongodb out, so I can save the changes per user like a local working copy.
Is there a way (without reimplementing the svn protocol) to make a checkout in a database or even just the memory and then write it in the database.
If there are any questions, just ask :)
Btw. if someone is interested, here is the code https://bitbucket.org/Knerd/svn-browser
There is no way to do svn checkout to directly to database. But there is some options.
First of all, you can simple create virtual disk that resides in memory and perform checkouts to that disk. Than you can store checked out files to database.
Another option is to use rich Subversion API directly. Note, that Subversion is written in C, so you will need to build bridge between Node.js and SVN (as far as I can remember, there is no official Subversion bindings for Node.js, but there is for Python and Java and there is unofficial nodesvn package available for Node.js). Using the API you can implement your own 'in-database' working copy.
Also you can use svnmucc utility (which is shipped with VisualSVN Server) to make commits directly in the repository (without even making a working copy). If you combine it with svn ls, svn info etc. you can implement repository browsing and editing of files.
Related
I've been using git for a little while now in a new project I am working on.
I decided to use GitLab.com as I would like the opportunity to keep me repos private until I'm ready to share them (which github doesn't allow me to do).
The whole beauty of git for me is that I have a copy of the whole repo on my local machine and on the remote site.
However I make lots of comments, on my 'local' gitlab instance.
I know that I can put the wiki into source control, is it possibly to do the same thing with the comments and milestones (or in some other way share them between repositories)
I feel that this should be possible.
Maybe using an rss feed to push and pull the data to / from the various locations.
Or can I use the issues as a 'mailing list' somehow, with a 'mail into list' (however I would then need to get my local gitlab instance to mail any new issues to the remote - could probably be setup using some form of 'auto forward' filter in my mail client / gmail.
Are any of these ideas even possible ?
Is there a better solution - I'd prefer something that will integrate into my gitlab instance (local and remote), rather than needing having to use a separate interface ~ I like everything to be in a single place if possible.
Remember also I like to have access to my issues etc when offline (and then have them 'sync' when I go back online).
Thanks for any help in advance.
David
You could build a script and make use of the API to sync your issues and notes. Maybe a script that pulls all of the new issues and notes and POSTs them to the equivalent projects on GitLab.com. You could run the script manually or create a cron job to post the new items periodically.
I am searching for a solution to automatically merge files on upload.
To be more precise, we are working in small groups doing web-development, working on the same folder on our Debian Server remotely, so the Problem is of course that if we often have the situation, where up to 3 People need to write in the same php file, at the moment we are trying to coordinate when which person is allowed to work on it.
So my idea was if there is a subversion like solution, to just merge every time we save the file via sshfs.
You should use version control. Here are some options. Which one you should use depends on a variety of factors.
Mercurial
Git
Subversion
You can then have the server your site is on pull from the repository.
I have been going through documentation and such and have SVN working, but I want to put it on an existing directory. I imported that directory, so do I rename/delete the non SVN directory and then checkout the SVN to the non SVN directory location? I am just trying to understand how to get it to start posting to our website URL.
If so, is there any way to keep the current non SVN and make it SVN rather than import and overwrite?
Thanks, I am trying to understand SVN, but find a lot of the tutorials and such on the web to be confusing.
Yes, you have it exactly. Once your code has been added to the repository, you can get rid of or rename your original code directory. Then checkout the project from the repository into the same location as your previous code and continue working from there.
UPDATE
To make it so that your website is updated from the repository, you actually need two working directories, and a repository.
Repository: The repository stores the code and changesets, but isn't directly accessible as a file system. Keep a backup!.
Working directory 1: You develop and test your code from a working directory checked out from the repository. Commit changes back to the repository.
Working directory 2: Rename the code directory on your webserver. Checkout a copy of the code to your web server in its place. Technically it is now a working directory, since it contains the .svn metadata directories, though you won't usually make changes here.
Make changes to your code from your development working directory (1) and commit them back to the repository. When you are satisfied that they are working correctly and have been properly tested, on the web server's code copy (2) do svn update (or if you're using Tortoise SVN on the web server, do an update). This will synchronize the server code with the current development version.
Subversion will not automatically push updates to your web server. You will need to pull them in with an update when you need to. It is possible to use what's called a "post-commit hook" to cause Subversion to execute a script when commits are made, and that script could update or export code to your production web server. However, you would need to write the script and it's kind of an advanced usage of Subversion. I would recommend trying out the method I described with a working copy on the web server to get accustomed to the workflow befrore trying anything more complicated.
Addendum If you really want to do this (and I don't really recommend it unless you really test well) a very easy method would be to schedule a cron job that does svn update every couple of hours (or minutes) on your production site.
Don't forget that if you do happen to modify your code directly on the web server, you must commit it back to the repository from there, and do an update on your development working copy.
I just logged onto http://www.ezsvn.com, that hosts my SVN repository. I have been paying monthly for hundreds of commits.
They're shutting down, and their support is nonexistent.
Can I get a backup of my repository from my machine? I’m using Windows.
If you have shell access:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Subversion_backup_and_restore
If you don't have shell access (look at both the original answer and also the comments re: svnsync):
http://moelhave.dk/2006/07/remote-mirroring-a-subversion-svn-repository/
If you have access to run svnadmin on their server, it'll be no problem, and I see Dav has already linked to instructions for that.
Now, if you don't have access to run svnadmin, as far as I know it's not possible to use the SVN client itself (maybe TortoiseSVN for you) to copy the entire repository. (EDIT: never mind, I guess that was wrong. I'll leave the git info here just for the fun of it though.) But you can convert a whole Subversion repository to git, and here are instructions for doing that: http://pauldowman.com/2008/07/26/how-to-convert-from-subversion-to-git/ From there, you might be able to convert the git repository back into an SVN repository on another server. I know it's not really the answer you were looking for but if nothing else works, it will at least let you save your project's history in some form. (And hey, you could take it as an excuse to switch to distributed version control, which is all the rage these days)
If you really want/need the full history of your repository, you'll have to either get a dumpfile from the provider or get it yourself - some of the responses so far have addressed this already.
Another option: if you are not concerned with past revisions, but want your repo at it's latest state, just checkout the head revision, and export it to a separate location on your computer. That way, you have all your work to this point. You could then keep that as a backup, or possibly create an SVN account elsewhere, and import the exported copy into a fresh repo, then you would be back in business.
This is somewhat related to my security question here. Is it a bad idea to use an hg / mercurial repository for a live website? If so, why?
Furthermore, we have dev, test and production installations of our website, like dev.example.com, test.example.com and www.example.com. If it's a bad idea to use a repository for a live/production website, would it be OK to use an hg repository for the dev and test sites?
I'm also concerned about ease of deployment. We have technical and less technical co-workers who will be working with the site. The technical people (software engineers) won't have any problem working with the command line or TortoiseHG. I'm more concerned about the less technical people (web designers). They won't be comfortable working on the command line, and may even find TortoiseHG daunting. These co-workers mostly upload .css files and images to the server. I'd like for these files (at least the .css files) to be under version control, but I want this to be as transparent as possible for the non technical team members.
What's the best way to achieve this?
Edit:
Our 'site' is actually a multi-site CMS setup with a main repository and several subrepositories. Mock-up of the repository structure:
/root [main repository containing core files and subrepositories]
/modules [modules subrepository]
/sites/global [subrepository for global .css and .php files]
/sites/site1 [site1 subrepository]
...
/sites/siteN [siteN subrepository]
Software engineers would work in the root, modules and sites/global repositories. Less technical people (web designers) would work only in the site1 ... siteN subrepositories.
Yes, it is a bad idea.
Do not have your repository as your website. It means that things checked in, but unworking, will immediately be available. And it means that accidental checkins (it happens) will be reflected live as well (i.e. documents that don't belong there, etc).
I actually address this "concept" however (source control as deployment) with a tool I've written (a few other companies are addressing this topic now, as well, so you'll see it more). Mine is for SVN (at the moment) so it's not particularly relevant; I mention it only to show that I've considered this previously (not on a Repository though; a working copy, in that scenario the answer is the same: better to have a non-versioned "free" are as the website directory, and automate (via user action) the copying of the 'versioned' data to that directory).
Many folks keep their sites in repositories, and so long as you don't have people live-editing the live-site you're fine. Have a staging/dev area where your non-revision control folks make their changes and then have someone more RCS-friendly do the commit-pull-merge-push cycle periodically.
So long as it's the conscious action of a judging human doing the staging-area -> production-repo push you're fine. You can even put a hook into the production clone that automatically does a 'hg update' of the working directory within that production clone, so that 'push' is all it takes to deploy.
That said, I think you're underestimating either your web team or tortoiseHg; they can get this.
me personally (i'm a team of 1) and i quite like the idea of using src control as a live website. more so with hg, then with svn.
the way i see it, you can load an entire site, (add/remove files) with a single cmd
much easier then ftp/ssh this, delete that etc
if you are using apache (and probably iis as well) you can make a simple .htaccess file that will block all .hg files (or .svn if you are using svn)
my preferred structure is
development site is on local machine running directly out of a repository (no security is really required here, do what you like commit as required)
staging/test machine is a separate box or vm running a recent copy of the live database
(i have a script to push committed changes to staging server and run tests)
live machine
(open ssh connection, push changes to live server, test again, can all be scripted reasonably easily, google for examples)
because of push/pull nature of hg, it means you can commit changes and test without the danger of pushing a broken build to the live website. like you say in your comments, only specific people should have permission to push a version to the live site. (if it fails, you should easily be able to revert to the previous version, via src control)
Why not have a repo also be an active web server (for dev or test/QA environment anyway)?
Here's what I am trying to implement:
Developers have local test environments in which they can build and test their code
Developers make a clone of the dev environment on their local dev machine
Developers commit as often as they want to their local repo
When chunk of work is done and tested, then developer pushes working change sets to dev repo
Changes would be merged and tested on Dev, then pushed to Test/QA, and so on.
BTW, we're using Mercurial. I believe this model would only work using a distributed source code management tool.