I'm currently dealing with the fallout from BitBucket dropping HG support. We're going to be giving hg-git a try because, while my preference is self-hosting, my boss isn't quite mad enough at Atlassian to move away from BB yet. Taking this opportunity to clean up our existing HG repo before the conversion to GIT. Have used hg convert to remove some accidentally committed binaries to reduce size, etc.
One thing I've noticed is that we've got about two dozen old branches that are technically "open", but have been merged into default (no closing commit, but they're months to years old). Is there any way I can use a tool like hg histedit or during the hg convert to go back and specifically mark old branch heads with --close-branch?
Looking through docs I can find things about editing files, editing the contents of commits, or modifying commit messages, but nothing I can find mentions meta-data around whether a commit is "closed". I know this is just a flag on a given commit, but I don't know how to retroactively add it via any HG extension.
Edit: Just to add a bit more clarity, I recognise I can just update to each of these old branches & add a new commit that just closes the branch. There'll be a lot of dangling-looking, closed heads, but that'd work fine enough. However, I also then have to give each of them a bookmark in HG as well, or these additional "closing" commits are lost in the hg-git conversion. I'd rather avoid having to add ~30 additional branches to the git branch-list, just to have them show up as closed properly in HG without having to use revsets.
What I want to do isn't "essential" in the grand-scheme of the repo, but I'd be surprised if editing a commit's metadata to say --close-branch were impossible.
I tested out the rebase idea with a mock repository and it seemed to work.
Here was the starting repo:
And here was the state after rebase:
I think this example matches what the question was asking about. The original dangling close-branch changeset was moved to precede the merge.
I updated to default and ran the following command:
hg rebase --dest=4 --source=3 --keepbranches --config=ui.merge=internal:merge
I actually used Tortoise Workbench to execute the rebase and that is the command it used. So the final argument for ui.merge is probably not strictly necessary.
As you may have already noticed using hg convert its a really good idea to make new clones when you go to modify the repository. Thus if it gets messed up you have an easy undo option. I'd certainly recommend that approach for this operation as well.
Related
I've recently started to work on an open source project which uses Mercurial.
I'm a new user to Mercurial, so I read the HG book and started working.
My goal was to write code and always pull and merge changes from the upstream
so I can stay up-to-date. The area that I am working on is also under heavy
development by others so I do want to merge my changes after a long period of
time. I cloned a repo. So, my workflow is like this:
I created a bookmark mybook
hg up mybook
Write code
3.1 hg commit -m 'new functions'
hg up default
hg pull
hg update
hg up mybook
hg merge default
Go to step 3.
In my mind this is the simplest workflow that allows me to stay up-to-date. I
also have only one HEAD because I always merge.
Since I am not a contributor yet, I am not allowed to push changes to remote
repo.
Recently I wanted to show my work to a project lead and he said send me a patch.
And this is where I am stuck. hg out shows 10 changesets. First of which
appeard already a month ago. They're numbers are 3341, 3342, 3345, 3346, 3349, 3356, 3360, 3365, 3366, 3368. The changeset numer 3368 is the tip.
I've recently read the chapter about the MQ extension. And this extensions seems to be what I need. But the problem is that I wrote code without using the MQ
extension.
So, how can I make use of the MQ extension on already created changesets so that
I can make a patch to send to the project lead so that he can apply it and see
my changes?
I've just issued hg qinit. What's next?
Issueing hg qimport -r 3341 gives
abort: revision 3341 has unmanaged children
Reading the book and googling further does not help me. I need an advice.
PS I've tried not using hg and MQ at all: simple diff -urN old/ new/ but I
want understand how to do it with the MQ.
Thank you.
Yeah, don't use MQ. It's a parallel system, meant for keeping things out of the history, and more important you don't need it.
You were asked for "a patch", not a complete history of your work, so I would recommend sending it in the form of a single before-after diff. hg export will give you a series of diffs, for all the work you've done, including the merges. I find it's far easier to read and review a single diff (before applying it). But instead of plain diff, use hg diff which knows to only look at tracked files, and has a number of other nice features (including the --git option, which provides richer metadata). This should do it:
hg up mybook
hg diff --git -r default > mywork.patch
Before sending it off, do an hg up default and apply the patch to check that it works without conflicts. And mention to the recipient which version of default you are patching against.
Edit: As you can read in the comments, #LazyBadger is a fan of the step-by-step patch generated by export. I prefer the single-step patch
since my history is usually TMI: Nobody cares about all the times I added a forgotten file, or noticed a bug too late and fixed in in the next commit, etc.
Take your pick.
I made some changes to a file and committed it. (In fact there were several commits).
Then I wanted to revert to the earlier version and lose all those changes.
I did something like:
hg update -r nnn where nnn was the reversion number of the changeset I wanted to go back to.
That worked. I was happy.
Then, later, I had to push my local repository to the remote. But when I did hg push I got a message about there being two heads on this branch and one of them not being known to the remote repositiory. It suggested I merge before pushing. (I think).
I googled this and found a page that suggested I do "hg merge". I did that. Now the resultant file is back to where I started. I.e. it contains all the changes I wanted to throw away.
Where did i go wrong?
EDIT:
I have found this post Mercurial — revert back to old version and continue from there
where it says:
If later you commit, you will effectively create a new branch. Then
you might continue working only on this branch or eventually merge the
existing one into it.
That sounds like my case. Something went wrong at the merging stage it seems. Was I on the wrong branch when I did "hg merge"?
You're past this point now but if it happens again, and it's just a single file you want to revert then consider:
hg revert --rev REVISION_YOU_LIKED path/to/just/one/file.txt
That doesn't update you whole repository to a different revision, and it doesn't create any commits. It just takes a single file in your working directory and makes it look like it used to. After doing that you can just commit and you're set.
That's not the way to go if you want to undo all the changes you've made to all files, but for reverting a single file use revert and avoid multiple heads and merging entirely.
No, nothing went wrong at the merge stage – Mercurial did exactly what you asked it to...
What merge means is that you take the changes on your current branch, and the changes on the 'other' branch, and you merge them. Since your original changes were in the 'other' branch, Mercurial carefully merged them back into your current branch.
What you needed to do was to discard the 'other' branch. There are various ways of doing that. The Mercurial help pages discuss the various techniques, but there are pointers in other SO questions: see for example Discard a local branch in Mercurial before it is pushed and Remove experimental branch.
(Edit) Afterthought: the reason you got a warning about there being two heads on the branch is because having two heads is often a temporary situation, so pushing them to a remote repository is something you don't want to do accidentally. Resolutions are (i) you did mean to push them, so use --force to create two heads in the remote repository; (ii) ooops!, you meant to merge them before pushing, so do that; or (iii) ooops!, you'd abandoned the 'other' one, so get rid of it. Your case was (iii).
Requirement
I'd like to abandon a line of development on the default branch, winding back to a revision from about 15 change sets back, and have default proceed from there.
My setup
This is a solo development project with one other guy testing infrequently. I push (frequently) to bitbucket for backups and sharing with the tester. Several of the changes I want to abandon are pushed to BitBucket.
Options
Any of these would be fine…
The abandoned change sets to continue to exist in the repo. It would be nice if they could live on their own branch abandoned-experiment-1, say, that I can close and ignore, but this would need them to move on to a retrospectively created branch (which seems like it would be an awesome feature?).
Some kind of merge to happen where I add a new revision to default that is the rollback to the revision I want to continue from.
The change sets to be destroyed, but I suspect there's no way to achieve that without replacing the BitBucket repo and my tester's repo, which I'm not keen on.
I'm not too sure how to evaluate which options are possible, which is best, or whether there are other, better options. I'm also not sure how to actually proceed with the repo update!
Thank you.
You do have several options (Note that I'm assuming that you are dispensing with all changes in the 15 or so revisions and not trying to keep small bits of them):
Easiest is kinda #2: You can close anonymous branches just like named branches; Tag the tip first with abandoned-development if you wish; hg update to the point you wish to continue from; and continue to code as normal. (You may need to create the new head for new development before you can close the old one. I haven't tested it yet.)
Regarding #3: Based on my cursory read, it does appear that bitbucket has a strip command. If you (both locally and on bitbucket) and your tester strip the offending changesets, you can carry on your merry way and pretend like they never existed.
Achieving #1: If you are definitely set on getting them to a named branch, you could strip them at the remote repos and then hg rebase them onto a new branch locally and then close that branch.
Personally, I try not to mess with history when I can avoid it, so I'd go with the easiest.
Mercurial now has (yet experimental) support for changeset evolution. That is you are able to abandon or rebase already pushed changesets. Internally this works by hiding obsolete changesets (i.e. practically nothing is stripped, only new replacement revisions are added to the history, that is why it works across multiple clones).
To extend #Edward's suggestions, you could also update to the last good revision, continue to commit from there and then merge in the head of the bad changesets using a null-merge:
hg up <good-revision>
... work ... commit ...
hg merge <head-of-bad-revisions>
hg revert --all -r .
hg commit -m 'null-merge of abandoned changesets'
This may be what you thought of as option 2.
As I understand it, you can't really fix a comment in Hg. So what I would like to do instead is re-push the exact same changes (or at least "touch" the same files and commit & push again).
The reason this is necessary is because we have a bug tracking and build system that relies on specific comment patterns, and we need to make sure the right files get included in the build, but if I forget to update the bug # in my comment from my last commit, and I accidentally commit and push it under the wrong # because i'm overzealous, how can I re-push those same files again without manually going into each one and adding a space or line break just to create a diff?
To clarify, I can't "rollback" or something; it's already been pushed with the wrong message.
As far as I know, current Mercurial features provide no support for this. After the changeset has been pushed, there's little you can do to un-push it, besides stripping it from the server repo and any other developer's repo.
I guess you you should ask those who set up this workflow in your shop; they should've come up with some exception handlers for it.
We usually just ignore issues like this, and close the bug by hand, making sure the bug links to the correct changeset. If the changeset is really messed up (usually this means bad changes, not a malformed commit message), we resort to stripping.
Since your change has already been pushed you can't use a simple fix, like "hg commit --amend", but you can do something similar. Basically, the following commands re-do the commit with Mercurial's help:
CSET=...the changeset to re-do...
hg up -r "p1($CSET)" # Update the working directory to the parent revision
hg log -r "$CSET" -p > changes.patch
hg import --no-commit changes.patch
hg commit # And use the appropriate commit message.
Then, merge and push.
The only way that I could think of doing this is to commit two more changes, one would be an hg backout of the incorrect revision and the other would be an hg backout of that revision with the corrected comment.
I don't like that idea though and wouldn't recommend it if there was any way to fix the problem in your bug tracking system.
I have a local mercurial repository with some site-specific changes in it. What I would like to do is set a couple files to be un-commitable so that they aren't automatically committed when I do an hg commit with no arguments.
Right now, I'm doing complicated things with mq and guards to achieve this, pushing and popping and selecting guards to prevent my changes (which are checked into an mq patch) from getting committed.
Is there an easier way to do this? I'm sick of reading the help for all the mq commands every time I want to commit a change that doesn't include my site-specific changes.
I would put those files in .hgignore and commit a "sample" form of those files so that they could be easily recreated for a new site when someone checks out your code.
I know that bazaar has shelve and unshelve commands to push and pop changes you don't want included in a commit. I think it's pretty likely that Mercurial has similar commands.
I'm curious why you can't have another repo checked out with those specific changes, and then transplant/pull/patch to it when you need to update stuff. Then you'd be primarily working from the original repo, and it's not like you'd be wasting space since hg uses links. I commonly have two+ versions checked out so I can work on a number of updates then merge them together.