I need to find out that how many times and which files are fixed or changed due to a bug between two specific dates in an open source project which uses Trac. I selected Webkit project for that purpose. (https://trac.webkit.org/) However, it can be any open source project.
What can I do for that? How do I start? Do i have to use version control systems like svn or git for intergration? I am kinda newbie for these bug-tracking and issue-tracking systems.
I'm not certain I exactly understand your question, but...
If you browse to the directory containing the files you care about in the Trac site, then click on Revision Log, you will get a list of changesets that affected that directory. You can select the revisions that span the timeframe of interest and then View changes and you will get a summary of the changes, and depending on the size of the changes and the particular Trac configuration, you may get the diffs on that page as well.
Now, that won't tell you how many times those files were changed, just the net changes.
It also won't tell you which bugs those changes were for.
If you really need to filter on what bug, you'll have to determine how that information is tracked by the particular project; and some might not track it directly. The project might include a #123 in the commit message. If you can rely on that, you could use svn log --xml {2009-11-01}:{2009-12-01} ... to get an xml version of the commit log which you could then parse and filter based on the presence of the bug's ticket number in the commit message. From that, you should have a list of the revisions that you care about.
Related
How to prevent checking out / changing one binary file in different branches of the same content. Situations like: designers have edited some game level (*.umap binary file) in their branch. Programmes changed same file in their branch (for example - added some blueprint on this game level). So now we have three different versions of this file, one in master branch before all changes, one in designers branch without programmes changes, one in programmes branch without designers changes. And now we must merge designers changes and programmes changes into master branch, but we cant.
So the question is - how to organise right this situations? Maybe we can setup perforce to checkout binary file in multiply branches at the same time, or something like this? Thanks...
There are a couple of different ways to think about this.
If you don't want work to continue/begin in one branch, until changes from another branch have been merged in to it, you can use Helix (Perforce) Protections, to give users read-only access to the branch.
This means they will be able to open files for edit, but won't be able to submit their changes.
More info about protections is here:
https://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4sag/chapter.security.html
The protections would need to be changed, when you are ready for work on the other branches to start.
If you want a file to be automatically checked out on all branches, each time someone checks it out on any branch where it exists, you would currently have to script this.
You could do it using the broker and a workspace for every branch, that has a view that just includes the files you want to be checked out everywhere.
The files would then need to be checked out in these workspaces and locked, so that other users can't submit to these branches until the locks are removed.
This is not trivial and may have a performance impact.
You might also be able to do it using pre-command triggers, if your server version is new enough.
If you want to go in to more detail about any of the above, I recommend you contact Perforce Technical Support.
Hope this helps,
Jen.
My colleague and I are participating in a huge project located in Accurev. We've already created own workspaces backed with some stream (let's call it zzz-stream) which is used by many other participants, not only by us.
The point is that we want to exchange our work between our workspaces, make some changes, exchange again, etc. BEFORE making the changes accessible for others, i.e. in other words we don't want to propagate our changes until it is stable and tested, but we want be able to work on it together.
My idea was to create new stream (yyy-stream) backed with zzz-stream, and then change our workspaces to be backed with yyy-stream. But unfortunately I have no rights to create streams.
My second idea was to use a workspace as backed stream, but it doesn't work because Accurev can't use ws as backed stream.
Is there any solution for our problem?
UPD: I accepted Brad's answer as most detailed. However Accurev is too heavy and sluggish to be used effectively. So actually I prefer to use Git for internal needs over the accurev workspace. (see Accurev externally, git internally)
Your idea of creating the yyy-stream is the EXACT right way to do it. The other options are decent workarounds for one-off situations, but creating the extra stream is simple and is fully leveraging AccuRev's capabilities.
That being said, I understand that your admins have stream creation locked down. They of course want control, but should be allowing for maximizing developer productivity and not forcing workarounds like this. My guess is they have stream creation locked down to a particular group being enforced by the server-admin trigger. One common thing I have seen other large sites do is:
- allow streams to be freely created off of a list of acceptable streams (easy to do in the trigger)
- enforce naming rules on the stream creation. This is important to admins in large sites to keep things organized. Again, this is very easy to enforce via the server-admin trigger.
Bottom line, if this is a common situation, work with the admins to allow this capability as per the above. If they have any questions, they are more than welcome to contact AccuRev and we will help them out.
Your idea on using another stream for you and your peer is a good one and is commonly called a collaboration stream. If your site has stream creation locked down, you would need to work with your AccuRev administrator to make that happen.
Another option is for you and the other developer to pull the keeps from the other workspace into your own stream. This relies on both of you being diligent about doing keeps and then you can look at the history of the other developer's workspace to find the keep operation, right-click that transaction and then select Send to Workspace. The destination workspace must be your own.
A third option (more for a situation where you are in your workspace and know exactly what file you want to grab the other users changes)is to bring up the version browser for the file, right click and select history/browse versions. Look for the other workspace, highlight the version in that workspace, right click and select send to workspace. This will checkout that version into your workspace.
This is similar to the change palette suggestion but quicker if your looking to this on a file basis.
Another idea is to use different version control system (e.g. git or svn) over Accurev workspace to exchange the changes and keep our history separated from zzz-stream. (similar to Accurev externally, git internally) Only changed files should be added to other VCS, not whole project. Some merge problems occur though.
Hello helpful persons,
I'm working with trying to set up some new branch structures in our companies codebase for organization and sanity purposes. True to form decision makers have changed their minds and want the structure to be changed a bit from what I already have in place. Not an over-the-top request though, because no one is yet using the new structure so I have "free reign".
I need to simply move these thousands of files in the containing branch directories (//depot/main/... and //depot/dev/... respectively) into a //depot/main/[product_name]/... structure etc. which I'm on board with and understand the advantages.
While opening the files from //depot/main/... for edit and move I see in my output that there are several warning messages:
warning: edit of deleted file
and
warning: move of deleted file
How can I tell perforce that I do not want to open deleted files for edit, and in turn that I do not want to move deleted files to the new location(s)?
I have a feeling that there is some documentation that I am either not understanding or not finding properly.
Generally you only get that particular warning if you aren't synced to head and are trying to move a file. Make sure you are synced to the head revisions.
As suggested by raven you should probably be using integrate for this. Generally my recommendation is to use 'p4edit/p4 move' intra-branch and 'p4 populate/integ/copy/merge' for interbranch branch integrations.
I'm trying to configure a trac server we are using in my team, in order to avoid an undesired behaviour. We are mainly developing free and open-source software in the team, but we sometimes need to be able to build our early prototypes as completely private.
Because of our first constraint, we want our timeline to be visible for anonymous users. But because of the seconde constraints, we want some commits to be completely hidden from the external world, i.e. we don't want anybody else than us to be able to read the message and content of some commits in the timeline.
Unfortunately, I've been unable to configure Trac the proper way to reach this behaviour untli now. I wan't find a configuration that would let me manage the Timeline content with enough accuracy.
Consequently, I would like to know if such a configuration is possible with trac.
For information, I'm using Trac 0.12.2. The installed plugins are :
Trac 0.12.2
TracAccountManager 0.2.1dev-r7731
TracNav 4.1
The only permission I can see that is related to Timeline is TIMELINE_VIEW.
EDIT :
I have forgot to mention something. We don't want to loose the private commits. And we want them to display for registered users. Consequently, it's not a solution for us to remove them from the database.
EDIT 2 :
Ideally, we would like the commits' message to be displayed according to the right to read the content of our Subversion repository. The idea is that, if a commit is made on a part someone can't access, this person is not supposed to be able to read the message of the commit either.
EDIT 3 :
If we have a look in the configuration file of trac, we already can find :
permission_policies = AuthzSourcePolicy, DefaultPermissionPolicy, LegacyAttachmentPolicy
and the authz_file variable is properly set too. Moreover, svn access to the private folders of the svn repositories can't be accessed by anonymous users.
You should set up authz checking for both your Subversion repository and your Trac installation. You can use the same permission file for both. For Subversion, see Path-based authorization in the SVN book. For Trac, enable and configure the trac.versioncontrol.svn_authz.AuthzSourcePolicy component.
This will allow you to have a very fine-grained control over who can access which part of the repository. Note that the implementation of AuthzSourcePolicy in Trac 0.12.2 has a few bugs that will be fixed in 0.12.3.
There are two ways of going about this :
1) You can directly edit the plugins that are running in trac, and add a module that helps you to filter these out at the code level (i.e. you can edit the behavior of the script to , say, only include commits which exclude certain key words). The timeline script is here (trac 2.4) : /usr/local/lib/python2.4/site-packages/trac/Timeline.py (here is an online diff snapshot of the source code : http://trac.edgewall.org/attachment/ticket/890/Timeline.py.diff)
2) You can remove the commits entirely - trac commits are derived from the sqlLite database (the schema is here http://trac.edgewall.org/wiki/TracDev/DatabaseSchema).
Of course, there also might be some fancy tools out there that provide a nice interface for editing the way the timeline looks.
Finally - temporarily, you can remove the timeline/roadmap entirely from the trac.ini file : http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/trac/users/28079
I confess that I've virtually no experience with the repository part of Trac, even less with using a repository with a variety of permissions across it's contents.
On the subject: Configuration is certainly not enough, see rblanks answer. While I've never seen the code for that functionality, I was wrong to suggest it doesn't exist. Because it is a central place and developed/supported in Trac core this is definitely the way to go.
Why isn't it standard behavior for Accurev to automatically run an "Update" upon opening the program? "Update" updates a user's local sandbox with the latest files from the building/promoted area.
It seems like expected functionality that the most recent files should be synchronized first.
I'm not claiming that it should always update, but curious as to why an auto-Update wouldn't be correct.
Auto-updating could produce some very unwanted results.
Take this scenario: you're in the middle of a development task, but you've made a mistake and need to revert a file that you just modified. So you open AccuRev, but before you have a chance to "revert to most recent version", you are bombarded with 100 files that have been changed upstream including the one you want to revert. You are now forced into the position of resolving all the merge conflicts before your solution will build, including the merge of your (possibly unstable) code in progress.
Requiring the user to manually update keeps a protective 'bubble' around the developer, allowing them to commit (keep) changes within their own workspace without bringing down code changes that could destabilise the work in their sandbox. When the developer gets to a point where his code is ready to share with others, that is the appropriate time to do an update and subsequently build/retest the merged codebase before promoting.
However there is one scenario that I do believe auto-updating could be useful: after a workspace is reparented. i.e. when a developer's workspace is moved from one part of the stream hierarchy to another. Every time we reparent we have to do a little dance:
Accept the confirmation dialog that reminds us (rather verbosely) that we need to update our workspace before we can promote any changes.
Double-click the workspace to view its files.
Wait for AccuRev to do a "Pending" search, to determine whether any file changes are waiting to be committed.
And finally, perform the Update.
Instead of just giving us a confirmation dialog, it would be nice if AccuRev could just ask us if we want to Update immediately.
I guess it depends on preference. I for one wouldn't like the auto-update feature.
Imagine you have a huge project and you don't want to build it every time you start Accurev. But you also can't debug because the source files and debugging info no longer correspond.