Suppose I'm working on a new feature.
While working on my new feature, I get enough basic functionality so that I want to release it while continuing to work on the full feature. When the new feature is fully complete, I want to merge that back to the main release, replacing the basic feature.
What is the Mercurial workflow to do this?
The way I would approach this would be to create a feature branch. Mercurial branches can be merged into each other multiple times. So you could merge at milestone 1 (basic / minimal features) and again later (full / complete features) from the feature branch into your main branch.
Branches can be either named or unnamed / anonymous; the workflow will work the same either way. Whether you choose to create a named branch is essentially a personal / team preference; be aware that named branches persist forever in the repository history so typically they are used for long-running projects.
Anonymous branches are so common some people don't even realize that's what they are using. Effectively a branch is created anytime you commit work. Each developer will implicitly be working on their own branch (at least until their new work is pushed and synchronized.) So you could simply work locally on the new feature and only push it to share with others when its ready. Work more, push again later.
Personally I use this approach often because it is very flexible and simple. I often like to keep multiple local repository clones, each dedicated to a single task. These can be easily created, used, and removed at will. If your repository is large then I recommend using hg share instead of hg clone to create the 2nd through nth local repositories, as it will save time & space.
If you prefer to do so you can also use the Mercurial bookmark feature to "label" an anonymous branch, this could be preferable to creating a permanent named branch since bookmarks can be removed later.
Related
I have four devs working in four separate source folders in a mercurial repo. Why do they have to merge all the time and pollute the repo with merge changesets? It annoys them and it annoys me.
Is there a better way to do this?
Assuming the changes really don't conflict, you can use the rebase extension in lieu of merging.
First, put this in your .hgrc file:
[extensions]
rebase =
Now, instead of merging, just do hg rebase. It will "detach" your local changesets and move them to be descendants of the public tip. You can also pass various arguments to modify what gets rebased.
Again, this is not a good idea if your developers are going to encounter physical merge conflicts, or logical conflicts (e.g. Alice changed a feature in file A at the same time as Bob altered related functionality in file B). In those cases, you should probably use a real merge in order to properly represent the relevant history. hg rebase can be easily aborted if physical conflicts are encountered, but it's a good idea to check for logical conflicts by hand, since the extension cannot detect those automatically.
Your development team are committing little and often; this is just what you want so you don't want to change that habit for the sake of a clean line of commits.
#Kevin has described using the rebase extension and I agree that can work fine. However, you'll also see all the work sequence of each developer squished together in a single line of commits. If you're working on a stable code base and just submitting quick single-commit fixes then that may be fine - if you have ongoing lines of development then you might not won't want to lose the continuity of a developer's commits.
Another option is to split your repository into smaller self-contained repositories.
If your developers are always working in 4 separate folders, perhaps the contents of these folders can be modularised and stored as separate Mercurial repositories. You could then have a separate master repository that brought all these smaller repositories together within the sub-repository framework.
Mercurial is distributed, it means that if you have a central repository, every developer also has a private repository on his/her workstation, and also a working copy of course.
So now let's suppose that they make a change and commit it, i.e., to their private repository. When they want to hg push two things can happen:
either they are the first one to push a new changeset on the central server, then no merge will be required, or
either somebody else, starting from the same version, has committed and pushed before them. We can see that there is a fork here: from the same starting point Mercurial has two different directions, thus a merge is required, even if there is no conflict, because we do not want four different divergent contexts on the central server (which by the way is possible with Mercurial, they are called heads and you can force the push without merge, but you still have the divergence, no magic, and this is probably not what you want because you want to be able to checkout the sum of all the contributions..).
Now how to avoid performing merges is quite simple: you need to tell your developers to integrate others changes before committing their own changes:
$ hg pull
$ hg update
$ hg commit -m"..."
$ hg push
When the commit is made against the latest central version, no merge should be required.
If they where working on the same code, after pull and update some running of tests would be required as well to ensure that what was working in isolation still works when other developers work have been integrated. Taking others contributions frequently and pushing our own changes also frequently is called continuous integration and ensures that integration issues are discovered quickly.
Hope it'll help.
I really like the Hg Flow for Mercurial repositories. we are currently using Bitbucket, and in each product multiple developers are working. basically they can work as below:
a team might work on a single feature.
another team might work on a release/hot fix.
So do i keep the "develop" branch in BitBucket or local repositories. and how about feature branches, should i push them to the central repository and remove when required. i assume we should do so right?
Thanks
I personally neither use git flow or hg flow as tools, but I do use some of the methods for my own projects (manually).
Before going into detail, you always need to provide branches in the main/bitbucket repository when multiple people need to merge or branch from them.
This definately includes "develop" and probably also features/fixes multiple people need to work on (unless you have another repository or method to exchange branches/commits between them)
The difference between using git and mercurial/hg is relevant here, since the branching models are quite different.
See A Guide to Branching in Mercurial for details. Using hg bookmarks would be quite similar to what git does with branches, but there is no full support for the bookmark branching model on BitBucket (see this ticket).
hg flow (the tool) uses named branches. In contrast to git branches, these are not at all light-weight, but permanent and global (they can at least be closed now).
This means whenever any commit created on any (named) branch other than "default" is pushed to bitbucket (even after merging) this will create the branch in the bitbucket repository.
So you don't have any other choice than keeping all branches in the main repository.
However, You can decide when to push and when to close these.
I would advise using hg push -r to push only the branches/heads you want to push and only pushing these when they are either needed by somebody else or finished and merged.
Branches should be closed as soon they are not needed anymore. (This is probably done by hg flow automatically)
You should close branches locally whenever possible. This way they might not even appear in the bitbucket interface. Some might reach the bitbucket repository only in closed state (which hides them from the interface).
Obviously you should often push any branches multiple people need to merge from.
In my understanding of the workflow the "develop" branch is always exactly one branch per project that should be pushed frequently (after local testing).
In case you are either not using hg-flow or named branches things are a bit different.
Both, using forks/clones or bookmarks as a branching method doesn't generate permanent or necessarily global branches.
Like mentioned above, you can't use bookmarks (reliably) when you also want to use bitbucket pull requests. You have to push bookmarks separately. A normal push will only update (a head of) the branch so you might miss commits from other team members when marging later. Hg will tell you when a new head is created. In that case you might want to merge the branch with the remote bookmark into your branch before pushing.
When using forks as branches it works a bit like with bookmarks, but bitbucket has full support for that. You need to have a new fork on bitbucket for every branch.
You naturally only want to create extra forks if you need different people to work on it and you don't have other means of commit exchange for them. You will need at least a separate "develop" repository then.
I personally wouldn't use the full "flow" with hg on bitbucket.
For my projects the "develop" branch is the same as master/default, since I don't roll out releases with git (other than development builds, that wouldn't use the release branch anyways). I don't need a separate "production" branch, since tags can mostly be used for production usage.
I also don't create a separate "release-preparation" branch. There is only a point in time when I only apply bugfixes on develop and stop merging features. That obviously won't work when you need to work at the same time on features that are dependendant on features not to be released in the next release.
Always using the full "git flow" is easy because git branching is easy and light-weight.
Depending on the branching model you use and how supportive the other tools are,
using the full "hg flow" might not be "worth it".
The hg guide actually discourages use of named branches for short-lived branches.
See Feature separation through named branches.
The "easy" branching concept promoted in the guide is forking/cloning. Bookmarks would be the natural way to translate git flow if the tool/bitbucket support would be better (and bookmarks longer a core hg feature).
Disclaimer:
I prefer git when I can choose. I do use hg, but not as my personal choice.
You also might have considered most of this, but since you didn't state any of these details and accept an answer (in the comments) that is quite different to what you are asking, I wanted to elaborate a bit.
Edit:
To follow-up on the comments:
I think hg bookmarks are comparable to git branches because both are just movable pointers to commits.
The main difference is, that when you delete a branch in git, the commits are possibly lost (when not part of other branches or pointed to in a another branch before they are garbage collected). When you delete a bookmark in hg, then the commits are still part of the repository (part of the (named or default) branch) unless manually stripped.
Anonymous heads are related, but only as something the bookmarks point to. Without bookmarks pointing to them the anonymous heads are not usable as a branch to work with (for more than just a local merge) and share. When you have anonymous heads in a repository you don't know what they are supposed to be or where they came from, unless you remember or have other clues. In my eyes anonymous heads are only a workaround for late implementation of bookmarks and no good implementation of remotes/remote heads.
Named branches are rather unrelated, as the only thing they have in common with git branches is having a name. They are light-weight in comparision to cloning the whole repository (forking as branch model), but not in terms of "you can't get rid of them". They are permanent.
Most places tell you not to use named branches unless you have a very good reason or it is a long-running branch.
I'm trying to determine how people use "branch repositories" while also using subrepos.
Let's say I have repo Main containing a solution file (.NET), and populated with subrepos A, B, C:
/Main
- A
- B
- C
MainSolution.sln
A, B, and C, while being shared between other "Main" repos, are very tightly integrated into Main project. Thus, a major feature to the Main repo will require modifications to the subrepos (i.e., they are shared libraries, but are very actively developed).
Now it is time to add a feature. This feature is too big for one person to handle, and thus the code will need to be pushed to the central repo so others can help. We'd also need to be able to go back to the last "stable" code before the feature development began in case a bugfix is needed. I believe I have two options at this point: (1) create a named branch in the Main repo, or (2) create a new clone of Main. Since there are subrepos, both of these options have repercussions not present typically.
Option 1) Creating a named branch will, I presume, allow modifications to the subrepos to be committed/pushed, but only other people who have also updated to that branch in their clone of Main will be affected, since the .hgsubstate file is tracked. However, the subrepos will get a new head, and thus the (possibly) experimental feature would end up getting pushed to the central repo. Am I understanding this correctly?
Option 2) There are numerous advocates for the "don't use named branches, use 'branch repositories'", which are literally clones of the main repo, but named differently and existing on the central server. This is a little appealing to me, as it seems to keep things separated (and thus detached from disaster as co-workers --and myself!-- are still learning Mercurial). But this workflow seems completely broken when subrepositories are involved, since creating a clone of the Main repo does not create new, separated clones of the subrepos. It's a new clone, but it's still pointing at the same subrepos, and thus changes made to them will find their way back into the subrepos! I realize this is by design, and it's one of the really cool things (to me) about Mercurial. But how on earth do people use this branch repository workflow with subrepositories? It is completely inconceivable that, for each feature/experiment/version/whatever, I'm going to create a new clone (on the central server) of the Main repo, AND create clones (on the central server) of the subrepos, AND modify all the .hgrc/.hgsub paths to point to the proper central repos.
At this point, I'm just trying to understand HOW people work on a complicated project and use subrepos with branch repositories. Any thoughts?
You have other options as well. You could use bookmarks, for example. Since version 1.9, bookmarks can be pushed and pulled, they're not just local anymore. Since you often don't want a development "branch" to stick around as a named branch after that new feature is completed, bookmarks are often a better choice for that kind of thing. I tend to use bookmarks for new development and save real branches for released versions.
You should also be aware that subrepositories don't have to be shared between multiple main repositories in the way you describe. You can actually have the subrepositories stored inside a main repository (as opposed to having them at the same level as the main repos, or stored in some other location entirely), which would make them unique to each main repository, except you can push and pull from the subrepos in other main repos when you want to share those changes. This is the way I usually do it.
Unfortunately much of this is difficult to explain without a whiteboard, so please let me know if this isn't clear.
I prefer named branches for features that will most likely eventually get merged into the default branch. It is much easier to switch branches than switch repos.
With named branches you never need to worry about accidentally pushing your unstable branch of development into the stable repo. The named branch is already there, but won't be retrieved via an update unless a developer asks for it.
We are looking to move our team (~10 developers) from SVN to mercurial. We are trying to figure out how to manage our workflow. In particular, we are trying to see if creating remote heads is the right solution.
We currently have a very large repository with multiple, related projects. They share a lot of code, but pieces of the project are deployed by different teams (3 teams) independent of other portions of the code-base. So each team is working on concurrent large features.
The way we currently handles this in SVN are branches. Team1 has a branch for Feature1, same deal for the other teams. When Team1 finishes their change, it gets merged into the trunk and deployed out. The other teams follow suite when their project is complete, merging of course.
So my initial thought are using Named Branches for these situations. Team1 makes a Feature1 branch off of the default branch in Hg. Now, here is the question. Should the team PUSH that branch, in it's current/half-state to the repository. This will create a second head in the core repo.
My initial reaction was "NO!" as it seems like a bad idea. Handling multiple heads on our repository just sounds awful, but there are some advantages...
First, the teams want to setup Continuous Integration to build this branch during their development cycle (months long). This will only work if the CI can pull this branch from the repo. This is something we do now with SVN, copy a CI build and change the branch. Easy.
Second, it makes it easier for any team member to jump onto the branch and start working. Without pushing to the core repo, they would have to receive a push from a developer on that team with the changeset information. It is also possible to lose local commits to hardware failure. The chances increase a lot if it's a branch by a single developer who has followed the "don't push until finished" approach.
And lastly is just for ease of use. The developers can easily just commit and push on their branch at any time without consequence (as they do today, in their SVN branches).
Is there a better way to handle this scenario that I may be missing? I just want a veteran's opinion before moving forward with the strategy.
For bug fixes we like the general workflow of Mercurial, anonymous branches that only consist of 1-2 commits. The simplicity is great for those cases.
By the way, I've read this, great article which seems to favor Named branches.
You're definitely thinking about this right, and it sounds like you're going down a good path. I'm a branches as clones person, but named branches have come a long way.
Having a central-ish repo to which all named branches are pushed is convenient for control and backups. Teams working on only branch X can easily create their own branch X only repo by doing hg clone -r X central-ish repo.
The best thing you can do to help the teams out is to let them do clones themselves somewhere that's sitting behind a hgwebdir.cgi instance (as, presumably your central-ish repo will be). You'll find not just teams, but sub-teams and pairs of teams will set up their own repos for mini-efforts you never new about. They'll put them on the named branches that make sense to them and merge back into central as appropriate.
I would make the decision if these three projects should go into one repository by the coupling between these projects (and how many patches are interchanged within them). The more independent they are the less are the advantages of having them in one repo (backup and management aside). There are some different kind of setups:
As you showed, one repository, with one branch for the shared code, and one branch for each project. When the projects itself are generated by forking the shared code base care must be taken when merging back to common (cherry-picking). When inside of each project-branch updates to the common-branch are generated as direct ancestors of the common-branch, and get merges into the project-branch, chances are good they can also be merged back into common. But if changes to common are developed on top of the project branch, merging back will require cherry-picking. I don't have experiences with such a setup, but I fear that the merges can get problematic.
one repo for the shared code and one for each project, connected by symlinks or as subrepo. Here care must be taken to not step on each others feed. In my experience this kind of usage has the potential to grow into a very big PITA. OTOH you seem to have this setup already and your fellow developers can work with it.
one repo for shared and one for each project, with the code from the shared one used as internal releases. I would go for this setup when there are not big regular changes on the shared code base.
All these situations can also be combined with customization-branches for each project within the common part. But I would try to minimize the number of currently active branches, since every new branch requires additional care of merges.
I'm sorry to not give a concrete answer, but "The right thing" (TM) depends to much on the local details.
I'm a Subversion user, and I think I've got my head mostly around it all now. So of course now we're thinking of switching to Mercurial, and I need to start again.
In our single repository, we have the typical branches, tags, trunk layout. When I want to create a feature branch I:
Use the repo browser to copy trunk to branches/Features/[FeatureName].
Checkout a new working copy from branches/Features/[FeatureName].
Start working on it.
Occasionally commit, merge trunk in, resolve conflicts and commit.
When complete, one more merge of trunk, then "Reintegrate" the feature branch into trunk.
(Please note this process is simplified as it doesn't take into account release candidate branches etc).
So I have questions about how I'd fulfil the same requirements (i.e. feature branches rather than working on trunk) in Mercurial:
In Mercurial, is a branch still within the repository, or is it a whole new local repository?
If we each have a copy of the whole repository, does that mean we all have copies of each other's various feature branches (that's a lot of data transfer)?
I know Mercurial is a DCVS, but does that mean we push/pull changes from each other directly, rather than via a peer repository on a server?
I recommend reading this guide
http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial//
In Mercurial, is a branch still within
the repository, or is it a whole new
local repository?
The equivalent of the subversion way of working would be a repository with multiple heads in mercurial. However, this is not the idiomatic way of doing things. Typically you will have only one head in a given repository, so separate repositories for each branch.
If we each have a copy of the whole
repository, does that mean we all have
copies of each other's various feature
branches (that's a lot of data
transfer)?
Yes, if you look at the history of the head of your local repository, then you'll be able to see all the feature branches that were merged in. But mercurial repositories are remarkably space efficient. For example, I have done a hg clone https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg to get the source for mercurial itself, and it is only 34.3 MB on an NTFS file system (compared to the source code download, which is 1.8 MB). Mercurial will also make use of hardlinks if your file system supports it, so there is little overhead if you clone a repository to another location on the same disk.
I know Mercurial is a DCVS, but does
that mean we push/pull changes from
each other directly, rather than via a
peer repository on a server?
One way of working is indeed to have each developer expose a public repository in which he pushes his own changes. All other developers can then pull what they want.
However, typically you'll have one or more "blessed" repositories where all the changes are integrated. All developers then only need to pull from the blessed repository. Even if you didn't explicitly have such a blessed repository I imagine people would automatically organize themselves like that, e.g. by all pulling from a lead developer.
Steve Losh's article on branching in mercurial linked above is fantastic. I also got into some explaining of branching and how the DAG works in a presentation I gave a couple of months ago on mercurial that's out on slideshare. The pertinent slides start at slide #43.
I think that understanding that all commits to the same repository are stored in a DAG (Directed Acyclic Graph) with some simple rules really helps demystify what's going on.
a node with no child nodes is a "head"
the root node has no parents
regular nodes have a single parent
nodes that are the result of a merge have two parents
if a merge node's parents are from different branches, the child node's branch is inherited from the first parent
Named branches are really just metadata labels on commits, but really aren't any different than the anonymous branches that happen when you merge someone elses work into your repository, or if you go back to an earlier version and then make a commit there to make a new head (which you can later merge).