Search the Community

I use git every day, but don't do much with branches because I work alone. I'm curious about something related to the branches, when a new branch is on a remote, and then it needs to be fetched and merged separately from the master branch. So pretend I'm on the master branch on my machine: git checkout -b develop # I make changes to files on develop git add . git commit -am "I have made changes to develop" git push origin develop Now there is a develop branch on the remote. Somebody else now fetches and merges (they are on master): git fetch origin # git shows that there is a new branch develop, and merge is also required for origin/master Normally without the develop branch, I would run this command from master: git merge origin/master Do I also need to checkout develop and merge origin/develop? # Do I need to do this too? git checkout develop git merge origin/develop Is there a way to merge all branches with their remote counterparts, all in one command?

So basically, I have got VirtulBox set up and running on my personal mac. It's for my own learning/development really. I have installed git, gitolite and gitweb on my virtual server (Guest VM is Ubuntu) and I am getting used to the basics of git. I have a github account and I want to take my git learning to the next level and put my project on to github. I am looking in to this but VirtualBox is saying that I should install GitHub Enterprise which doesn't feel right to me. This is just one guy's development.. Instead I created a new repository on github and ran this; git remote add origin https://github.com....etc/ I got an error, fatal: unable to access 'https://github.com/[username]/[project]': Could not resolve host: github.com Is it because I am doing it from a virtual environment? Would it be easier for me to set up git on my OXS instead and push/pull from the local dev folder? I'd rather not do it that way.. Advice?

I've spent the last year building a web application on my local machines using the typical LAMP stack. I've been a developer for 10+ years and am fairly good when it comes to scripting but the server/hosting/system admin thing scares me. I've taken tons of sites live but they always exist on shared hosting and require minimal maintenence...simply ftp changes...no big deal. With my latest personal projects I've used revision control (git or mercurial) simply as a way to let me work from different machines. It's awesome. I push code from home, work, and my laptop and everything is in sync with one another. It really has changed the game for me. ( I use bitbucket) My latest project will involve paying customers and has a huge code base. FTPing files is not going to cut it. I've heard of having a "staging" environment so that you can push code to the staging environment, test it, and then push to production. That sound perfect! Every time I google git/staging I get pages and pages of command line stuff. I'm used to using version control GUI's like tower and sourcetree. Are there server environments that would allow me to use a GUI to manage version control? Or are linux server environments command line only? Are there any hosting companies you know of that would be a good fit for these needs? I'm looking to keep the hosting <= $20/month Thanks

Hey y'all - I have a quick question. [edit - As I type, it's becoming a not-so-quick question. Sorry about that, but I'd very much appreciate any input.] At work (we're on osX) we've recently switched to using Bitbucket with SourceTree for our version control system. I've got many project directories, already populated with working files. They're under SVN control, but honestly our SVN repo is a bit of a mess and I'm hoping to start over. My process for creating GIT repositories for each of these project directories using SourceTree is as follows: In the bookmarks window that pops up when I launch SourceTree, I click '+ New Repository' > 'Create Local Repository', then I use finder to navigate to the populated project directory and select it. I click 'Create Remote Repository', then click 'Create' to create the local repo. After filling out the remote repository owner and description, and marking it private, I click 'Create'. Then, in the browser window for the newly created repository that appears when I double click on the bookmark, I stage all the files in the local project directory and commit them. I then push that to the remote master branch. My question is this - is using the SourceTree 'Create Local Repository' option as described above equivalent to using the terminal window and 'git init' in the project directory? Everything seems to be working correctly (I've successfully committed and pushed files to the remote repositories), but I've only been using this setup for 2 days and haven't done any real heavy lifting with it yet - no branching or merging or anything of the sort. I have successfully cloned one of the repos on a secondary system, but haven't had a chance to make changes on that secondary system and commit then push them to make sure everything is actually working correctly. It certainly seems like all is well, and I have done more thorough testing on my home system, but that's a Windows box and the Windows version of SourceTree is quite different from the Macintosh version. Really, I decided to go with ST because I just don't like the command line and the price was right (free), and I'm trying to learn it as I go. I just don't want to be five or six months down the line and have to make a major change to a project only to discover that I messed up something very simple with the repository initialization and nothing's working like it should... Hopefully this is a dumb question and I'm just being paranoid, but I'd very much appreciate any input anyone with SourceTree experience has and is willing to offer.