I have a pro version and a lite version of the app that have nearly identical codebases. The difference being that the lite version has ads in various view controllers as well as in app purchases. I have each version on its own branch in Git with the lite version being the master branch currently.
I have localized the pro version, switched all strings to NSLocalized string, added localization files etc. I am wondering what the best way to merge these changes into the lite version without overwriting the differences between the two. When I open a "merge into..." session in Xcode, it automatically would overwrite the differences.
Is there a way to skip a block of code in a merge?
There may not be a solution for this but before I do it manually, I just wanted to check.
It's not a git problem but a project structure problem. You should never have tried to misuse git branches for this purpose to start with. Instead, you should have used Xcode's project / workspace facilities (or a framework) to organize the code itself so that it could be shared between two targets.
Related
What are the differences between aspnetcidev and aspnetvnext?
I see that aspnetcidev says "quick builds", but what does this mean?
Jan 29, 2016 edit:
This information is now part of the ASP.NET wiki: https://github.com/aspnet/Home/wiki/NuGet-feeds
The ASP.NET build system uses 3 myget feeds for each branch + nuget.org.
aspnetvolatile<branch> (aspnetvolatiledev/aspnetvolatilerelease)
aspnetci<branch> (aspnetcidev/aspnetcirelease)
aspnetvnext (dev branch)/aspnetrelease (release branch)
After each repo under github.com/aspnet builds successfully, each package produced by it is pushed to the corresponding volatile feed.
After the graph of repos is build, we trigger the Coherence build. This build verifies that the packages have matching versions and their references are correct (that they are coherent). Then, it pushes them to aspnetci<branch>.
Once the Coherence build passes, we run all our tests on the packages in the aspnetci<branch> feed. If the tests pass, we sign the packages and ship them to aspnetvnext or aspnetrelease
So the differences are:
aspnetvolatile<branch>
latest packages
possible not coherent
not tested
not signed
updated on every checkin
mostly used to diagnose build failure
aspnetci<branch>
possible not latest
coherent
not tested
not signed
updated when all repos build successfully
used by our build system
aspnetvnext/ (aspnetrelease|nuget.org)
possible not latest
coherent
signed
tested
updated when everything works
used for stable packages
Once the aspnetcirelease feed is stable, we push the packages from it to nuget.org.
Unless you work on developing new features for ASP.NET, I recommend that you use aspnetvnext (for dev bits) or nuget.org (for release bits). The release feed (aspnetrelease) is just a staging feed and it's not always in a good shape.
Edit:
I think it's easier to understand from a table:
I'm abrade that you can get the exact answer on the question only from Microsoft. You can open https://www.myget.org/gallery and filter for "aspnet" for example and will find many other repositories published for different teams.
For me more interesting is the information displayed by .NET Version Manager: dnvm (without parameters):
Thus, for me, the source https://www.myget.org/F/aspnetvnext/api/v2/ (or https://www.myget.org/F/aspnetvnext/api/v3/index.json) is the "official" place for the night builds of ASP.NET 5.
On the other side by filtering of https://www.myget.org/gallery "aspnet" you can see that aspnetvnext contains more distinct packages as aspnetcidev.
It's clear that both repositories probably contains different set of packages.
One important example where the repository https://www.myget.org/gallery/aspnetcidev be used is the new .NET Command Line Interface (.NET CLI) which you find on GitHub here. The new dotnet utility uses https://www.myget.org/F/aspnetcidev/api/v3/index.json together with many other sources in https://github.com/dotnet/cli/blob/master/NuGet.Config.
I suppose that AspNetCIDev is the repository of packages required for .NET CLI. It's the utility, which should replace dnx and dnu in RC2 of ASP.NET 5. See the post, this one and some other.
I need to maintain in parallel two version of the same applications. One for app store and one standalone (not app store) version.
My initial plan was to use the master branch for developing all feature that are common for both version. For standalone version my plan was to create a new branch, and in that branch to add a features for standalone applications, and the same for app store version.
Actually I tried my plan, but I have a problem with cocoapods. I have multiple dependencies that are common, but for standalone application I need to use a Sparkle framework. Now every time I try to merge master to one of my branches I have a huge conflicts with cocoapods files. That are very difficult to solve.
I was thinking about removing pods for my source control but than, when I switch branches I will need to do "pod install" every time.
Is there a better way to do this?
Thanks.
I strongly recommend to use Targets.
Look Apple docs and here.
I am looking at nuget for improving automatic handling of dependencies (both internal and third party) during development.
A long as you develop through the CI Build Server, all is good:
get latest source for A and B, where B depends on A
fix bug in A
build A
check into source control
CI Build Server initiated
new nuget package is created and placed in corporate repository
build B (which will get the updated A package)
run B to verify that the bug in A was fixed
n. repeat n times
However, I'm wondering if it is possible to work locally as a single developer, without having to wait for the CI Build Server to produce a new package?
Nuget has a feature Package Restore, which will download all dependencies automatically on build. You can also list the repository order that the Package Restore should look for packages.
If the workflow could become:
get latest source for A and B, where B depends on A
fix bug in A
build A
(building creates a local nuget package)
run B to test the (resolved) bug in A (should now use our local nuget package, not local repository)
...repeat n times
check into source control
CI Build Server initiated
new nuget package created in corporate repository
Is this possible using Visual Studio, MSBuild, a CI Build Server and nuget? I'm especially interested in the making of local packages while developing locally.
Note that I have native projects, although except the generation of nuget package post-build, this would be a workflow that I hope should work for both C# and C++ projects.
The solution I have now, though far from ideal, is what I could figure out works best. Oh! and it is a work in progress so it WILL change in the coming weeks/months as I figure out how to get around the kinks.
I mostly have to deal with managed DLL right now but I do have some native code and worst, multi-platform native code to deal with eventually.
Create a local repository, basically just a folder and configure it in your list of nuget feeds.
Then I created a task (MSBuild) that will package the project and output it in the local repository's root folder. Make sure the version of your package is always increasing. Presently I do this manually by editing the assembly version.
Once built, update your other projects that reference it, I usually do this though the package manager console (update-package).
Each projects that was updated, bump up their version rinse lathe and repeat until you get to your top-most project (the actual program).
Once everything is nice and good and you are ready to commit then the build system should do it's own packaging and send it to your official repository.
The Good
No clogging of the repository and build system with intermediary development versions, that garbage remains (as it should) local.
Local repos are super easy to set-up, can even be done without changes to VS though the global nuget config.
This is friendly to both paradigms of package recover or checking-in packages with the project. That said I would recommend not checking in the packages you built locally but rather one that was committed to your local repository ideally through the build system. What's built local should remain local.
The Bad
Still much more complicated than just adding projects to a solution.
The deeper (or wider) your dependency tree the bigger the pain.
The Ugly
Makes some native nuget behaviors quite quirky and annoying :
Update operation takes forever if your VS is connected to a version system (perforce for me). I hear they "solved" the problem, would hate to see how it was before if it was worst that it is now !
Having nuget change non-code reference back to never copy is a major pain.
If Only
Configure the desired state of a content dependency (copy always, never or newer) directly from the nuspec and be done with it ! (oh and same story with ClickOnce content status include, exclude etc)
Make the update operation quick, 2 minutes for a dozen project is just insane, especially if the ultimate goal is to manage 500+.
Perhaps a hybrid mode where locally we work with projects inclusion but the build system would work with nuget dependency (and build them if necessary)
If you are to parse the project do follow MSBuild parsing rules and honor the conditional statements.
There are still issues I have yet to figure out like how to manage multiple branches of the code in the repository. How to handle version conflict further up the food chain. In a large project (ultimately we have to bring 500+ separate projects together in a single application executable, conflicts are expected).
I would love to bring all the goodness of sane dependency management à la Maven but thus far I did not find nuget to be mature enough to even think of proposing it to the dev team.
Certainly. In our solutions, NuGet parks the libraries in the "packages" directory of the solution's hierarchy which is ultimately kept in TFS. This allows for complete solution check-outs that includes the required libraries. If it's your intention to update the libraries normally provided by NuGet, you'll need to update the dependent projects' references to point to the project containing the updated code normally provided by the NuGet process.
Prior to checking-in your regular solution work (not the NuGet related libs,) make sure the solution's NuGet libs are up to date, and the references in the solution point back to the NuGet installed libs. Of course, you'll check-in and fetch the NuGet related libs beforehand.
When developing iOS applications, I frequently use third-party code from GitHub and reusable classes I created myself. What I have been doing is cloning the source code into a specific folder somewhere in ~/Documents, where I kept all the library code. Then I would drag the source files into the Xcode project and code away, with a local Git repository keeping track of the changes in my own source code. So far so good, but I recently found a severe problem: I wanted to switch back to a older version of my Xcode project and found that it did not compile anymore because it used an older version of the third-party code, and nowhere had I stored which version it used!
How is this problem usually solved? I have looked briefly into Git submodules, but I'm not sure if it's the right thing. I also briefly read about CocoaPods, but could I also use that for libraries I created myself?
It is actually solved with git submodule: the idea is to reference an exact commit for each submodule you need, allowing you to go back in the history, and find the coherent set of commits you need for your project to compile then.
(More in this answer)
However, that does require a slight change in your working tree structure, since each submodule would become sub-directories of the parent repo which represents your project.
Note also that it (git submodule) is useful for source dependencies.
CocoaPods would be more for building the binaries you depend on (binary dependency).
I'm wondering how Software Development Team distribute their Standard IDE(s)?
E.g. developing with Eclipse, custom Code formatter, svn Resository, Copyright Header..
At the moment my Team has a standard zip File which is then distributed withhin the developers.
Problem:
If one file, a Plugin or the IDE itself changes, e.g. new Coding Guidlines, Upgrade Eclipse 3.5.1 the whole distribution has to be done again. Every developer needs to unzip the bundel again. Imagine your working with different Workspaces (Jetty, different Tomcamt Versions, WTP) due to Project History That doesn't scale
I know that there are some related Articels
A new version of Eclipse just came out. Is there anything I can do to avoid having to manually hunt down my plugins again?
Manage Your Eclipse Install With A Local Git Repository
And some comercial Programs.
Eclipse also has a new Update-Installer Approach
But I don't see the Killer App. How do your team solve this? Is there a best practice?
I guess best would be a Program letting you choose your current Project and then downloads the configured IDE from the Server and leting you know if Project Config Files are Updated
For eclipse look at Buckminster it targets exactly your target I suppose, didn't use it personally through.
At my previous company they wrote a custom update agent that pulled from a centrally configured server which was updated by the team leaders. It worked well, until people wanted to install their own plugins.
Basically, a developer wanted a plugin, fought in futility to get it included in the default (managed) repo, installed it himself, then updates broke on his machine when the team lead had a sudden stroke of common sense and included it.
They never did come up with a 'good' way to manage it. But, at least they didn't put us all on terminal servers with thin clients.