Accurev promote multiple files er

accurev promote multiple files er

Posts about AccuRev written by David Thomas, rmohr, acserpa, Brad Hart, and accurev. When doing very-frequent builds (e.g. per-promote or even nightly) this Simply reparent the stream, update the attached workspace and the files on disk If your software runs on multiple platforms or your test runs take hours/ days. with Accurev, with multiple streams and workspaces, code promotion, conflict using Golden Gate, File Writer and BCP; Supported Goldengate replication in build ER Diagrams using Erwin; Documented and mentored team with best. Creating Workspace Keep Promote Update Workspace Search Updating a workspace retrieves new(er) versions from any parent Ideal for unicode files or configuration files with embedded binary or multi-lingual data. Data Modeling/ETL tools: ER/Studio, ERWIN, and Microsoft Entity Framework to query the database to generate different types of ad-hoc reports using SSRS. All programs promote emotional wellness and secure attachments to parents Created configuration file for various SSIS packages to make. AccuRev, Inc. Baker Ave Concord MA. Course Updating a workspace retrieves new(er) versions from any parent stream up to the base stream or a Ideal for Unicode files or configuration files with embedded binary or multi-lingual data. The Active Files list serves 2 purposes - users can promote.

Related videos

Download release 1. Implemented incorrectlythey can be a traceability curse. Deprecated Concept? Stories of Misuse. In some traditional CM systems, you have the ability to commit new file changes, un-label the old version and re-label the new version. As easy as this sounds, this anti-pattern instantly breaks traceability [do your labels maintain history?

Because most CM systems label the individual files or references in a given configuration; the more files you have, the longer it will take to label the entire configuration. Valid Cases. Most cases have to do with marking transient build configurations. This eliminates the need to configure your build system with each-and-every new build label — especially painful for those build systems requiring manual edits of config xml files — ugh.

Dramatic prairie dog game Pattern. Two examples are presented below showing how floating labels can be used to support continuous integration with streams. Static Floating Label.

No need to change your CI configuration. When doing very-frequent builds e. Dynamic Floating Label. Simply reparent the stream, update the attached workspace and the files on disk will mirror the current release snapshot configuration. The same pattern can be applied to production releases where internal snapshots capture detailed per-configuration changes, but the reparented floating label can represent the latest public release.

There are two camps on the subject, and this will be left for another blog. Lastly, having recent snapshots immediately available assist with debugging why the latest build is broken — diff by snapshot. How about the output from test runs? Consider shipping an application to a customer who 2 years later reports a defect. Surely you have the exact versions of source files. But are you using the exact build file? How about the original version of the compiler? But probably not. Myth 1: No developer wants to checkout source code accurev promote multiple files er wait for or be inundated with megabytes of.

The Accurev promote multiple files er Truth: Myth 2: Committing binary files slows down your CM system. Traditional SCM systems combine both meta data and content resulting in slower performance over time as the number of files increase think labeling.

AccuRev stores meta-data separate from file contents and uses indexes to lookup and retrieve contents. For example, transactions are labeled not files. Using a card catalog index lookup to find your books is always faster than walking the isles linear scan.

Myth 3: Storing generated artifacts will bloat the repository. Back in the day of wild-west coding, there was little rhyme or reason for where files were saved in the source tree.

Organizing the top-level source tree and configuring your build tool can make it very easy to carve out source vs. Two options are present that can also be used in combination. Option 1: Store and track generated artifacts as sub-configurations isolated from the mainline. From a baseline snapshot such as a test build or release candidate, create a new child stream to store the generated artifacts. Then create a second snapshot that represents both source code and generated artifacts.

Furthermore, you can diff these two snapshots to know exactly how the binary configuration is different from the source configuration. You might also consider storing compiler files, debugging output, test output,the compilers themselves! Option 2: Store and track generated artifacts directly in mainline but exclude them from downstream access using stream-level exclude rules.

The top-most streams that need access to both source and binary will include the majority or entire filesystem footprint in their configurations. The first stream that does not need access to generated objects will likely be the candidate to set accurev promote multiple files er exclude rule on the folder s that contain those files. The exclude rule is inherited to all children and grandchildren.

Traditionally, make based build systems would generate the compiled files in-line with the source code. Lately, ant based build systems would package all generated artifacts in a separate sub-tree off the root. In practice I see both patterns in use and both have equal merit depending simply accurev promote multiple files er the situation at hand. Option 1 is commonly used when generated artifacts are not to be included in the official release. For example, transient or secondary artifacts such as test cases, debugging output, reports, etc.

These files cisco vcs vmware s not promoted up to the release stream. Option 2 is usually used when the generated artifacts are expected to be included in the official release snapshot. That is to say, the CM system may have all possible files but you can choose 3ala 7esb wedad mp3 s actually gets deployed.

Ultimately, storing everything in the CM system may likely be the right choice for audit and reproducibility. AccuRevbinary filesdefect trackinggenerated objectsreproducibilitySCMSoftware Configuration Managementsource code auditsource code controlversion controlversioning generated objects Permalink Posted by David Thomas.

I hope so! The equator is commonly established on the integration stream. Have you read the private prototyping or stream-per-task blogs by Dave Thomas? The admin type commands are typically global accurev promote multiple files er nature, meaning, that a accurev promote multiple files er Admin group is granted permission for these commands.

Stream creation has a more granular scope allowing different groups to control their development process and stream management capabilities.

There are 2 accurev promote multiple files er in the trigger to set this up depending upon the commands to control. Inside the trigger logic, each command is evaluated and will allow the operation to complete or not. There are other facilities in AccuRev to control the process and workflow too.

A common addition is around audibility and compliance of the entire development process which may require them to version more than just the source code, but also any requirements, project plans, design artifacts and documentation. This enables the labeling of the big picture of who, what, where, why and how the software was developed. A few examples of these new user types may be hardware designers, graphic designers, product managers, or the documentation team.

These types of users are working with different types of files, and work in different tools than the traditional software developers and because of that may use version control tools in different ways. Since many of the files they work on are binary. In order to make this new type of user successful they need to use an interface that is familiar to them. This type of interaction will likely accurev promote multiple files er work well for these types of users, as many of them may not have the technical know how to work in those environments.

At the time Dynamic views were introduced, there was tremendous pain in the market using a local source copy model, especially in enterprise applications. They also provided just-in-time access to files across a network connection which was transparent to the end user, similar to the way NFS works. Unlike NFS, which you only can access the latest version of files, the dynamic views allow the developer to reconfigure their view of the files to represent any given configuration past or present.

Also, unlike a local copy model, reconfiguring what a developer sees does not require any file copying to reflect the changes. This saves time and money and the savings continue to scale the larger the development group gets. Does it still hold water? Both workstation and network hardware costs have dramatically dropped in recent years, and the performance has increased exponentially.

It is very common and reasonable for developers to have near server-class systems on their desktops. In many cases, it is now a much better time savings to have developers work with local copies of their source files. Dynamic views were a time and cost savings breakthrough when it was introduced, but given the changes in development environments in the current time, it is more often than not seen as a hindrance. There is also a much higher administrative burden associated with Dynamic views.

Also, Dynamic views are notoriously unreliable and unusable over remote connections. Add in the fact that ClearCase does not have atomic transactions, and developers using Dynamic views will constantly have inconsistent sets of code to work on.

Bottom line is that even Rational recommends developers use Snapshot views like AccuRev workspaces and only use the Dynamic views for integrations. All your work can be done directly from one workspace. The final test of your code changes before check-in is exactly the same thing as testing the release area code directly.

AccuRev builds in best-practices like private-branching workspace streamsatomic transactions, and copy-merge.

You absolutely must merge against the latest code before you accurev promote multiple files er your changes for overlapped files. Plus, developers have total control of their workspace bringing in new changes as they are ready.

That way if something is broken, they will accurev promote multiple files er whether it is their code, or the latest code from the mainline. With Accurev promote multiple files er views, you will have to go find out for yourself and it is constantly changing.

Damon will be presenting this Wednesday accurev promote multiple files er the following topic, and again on April 1 to discuss The Algorithms and Architecture of Agile vs. Traditional Software Development.

accurev promote multiple files er

2 thoughts on “Accurev promote multiple files er”

  1. Sie haben ins Schwarze getroffen. Darin ist etwas auch mich ich denke, dass es die gute Idee ist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *