I am on the default branch, but some old commits are said by mercurial to be other default heads.
I would like to push a commit, but I can't because otherwise I would have to push other default heads which would be wrong.
How can I make the situation clean? I assume I have to get reed of these additional default heads and so that I again push my work. Is there a safe way to do it?
First piece of advice is to backup you repo so that if something goes wrong, you have a return path.
You will need to determine if the other heads are important or if they can be thrown away. You can list the heads with:
hg heads
if the other heads are throwaways, you can use the hg strip command. Some caution is
needed here. If you created a anonymous branch (the head in question) and later merged
it back to your default (or other branch), deleting it will cause any changed after the merge to also be removed.
You should spend some time reviewing: hg log -G (or one of the many graphical interfaces) and determine if this is going to be an issue.
If it is an orphan branch (head) you can use:
hg strip changeset-id
Related
I sometimes but not always end up with two heads on my default branch. The sequence of events is something like:
hg pull
hg update -C default
hg branch mybranch
hg merge default //merge in default
hg commit -m"merged mybranch into default"
hg heads -default //shows 2 heads
hg push --branch default //won't let ne. create 2 heads
The 'rival' head appears to be a changeset committed to default earlier in the day.
What I don't understand is why this happens sometimes and not other times.
The explanation I am usually offered is that the other guy pushed a change after I did a pull (my first action in the list above). But I think this happens in other cases e.g. when he pushed his changeset before I started.
I would have thought that when I pull default with his commit I get default with one head. My merge/commit should just create a new head after that. Why does it create a second head?
First of all, this is a totally normal situation. It's not a problem, or an error, or something to be avoided -- it's how a DVCS works.
In brief: you get two heads whenever two people start working from the same commit and do different things. It doesn't matter if they do it in their own (named) branch (as you're doing above) or on default. Once you merge your work back to default and someone else has done work on default you've got two heads and someone has to merge. It's just how things are.
Before you push do a hg pull and then a hg merge and you'll integrate your work with yours, by creating a new merge commit, with two parents -- your work and their work -- and then you push and you'll not see that warning.
Incidentally, you might want to check out the bookmarks feature. It's better suited for per-feature branches like you appear to be doing above than the named branches you're using, but it in no way saves you from having to deal with multiple heads.
check state of repository immediately after pull (pull can bring new head in default for you) with hg heads
hg branch without commit do nothing (you haven't mybranch)
Even if you'll create mybranch and merge it with default's tip (according to your syntax), it will not eliminate 2-nd head in default
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.
I've come across a difficulty at work (as presented in the simplified sketch below). During the creation of a branch the default for some reason got stuck as a parent to a branch, but still keeping a default branch separately (that is the default branch we're using going forward). This has left us with two default branches.
Someone mistook how to commit changes before branching, so we ended up merging changes made in branch1 into a branch2.
I've been looking into Mercurial: the definitive guide to see if this is a resolvable issue, but couldn't find out what commands regarding backing out or closing that would help. The easiest way would be if it's somehow possible to rename the left-over default branch.
What is the best and/or easiest way to resolve this?
I'm preparing the merging of development branches into the correct default branch and want to have this headache fixed before I start any major merging that could make it even more difficult to fix this in the future.
Remember that the branch names are just labels put on the commits — there's nothing really broken about your graph. The branch names doesn't affect what happens when you merge, only the file content is important when merging.
That being said, you can close the extra head on default, the one below branch1:
$ hg update "min(heads(branch(default)))"
$ hg commit --close-branch -m "closing this head"
That will leave a dangling close changeset in your graph, which is fine. The close changeset will hide the head from hg heads and commands such as hg merge will then no longer suggest to merge with this head.
Old question, but I though this might be useful to someone.
..this occurs when a single branch diverges, usually when someone does an hg push -f instead of pulling and updating. In your case, the forced head happens to be also on another branch, but this can happen on a single branch as well. My solution would be to let it sit until the branches are merged -- at least, if there's a plan to merge them at some point. This solution is more clean than closing the erroneous head, in my opinion.
However, doing hg update default will take you to the newest commit with the 'default' name. Although I think this idea is the right one in your case, this is because the "default" that you actually want is the newest commit with the "default" branch name, so there should be no problem.
However, if the erroneous head were newer, hg update default would take people to the erroneous head, which could be quite confusing.
In either case, this would resolve the issue:
hg update <revision number of correct 'default' head>
hg merge <branch the erroneous 'default' head is on>
So in this case, hg update default will update to the erroneous head:
1-2(default)
\
3(default)-4(branch1)
You would need to do:
hg update 2
hg merge branch1
# results in this graph:
# 1-2---5(default)
# \ /
# 3-4(branch1)
whereas below, hg update default will update to the one you actually want anyways:
1-2------------5(default)
\
3(default)-4(branch1)
..and you could just ignore the erroneous default, because it won't affect anyone. ..then, once someone does an hg update default; hg merge branch1, the erroneous head will silently disappear, because at that point it's an ancestor of the erroneous 'default'. ..which would result in something like this:
1-2-5----------11(default)
\ /
3-4-[...]-10(branch1)
..you could also do a useless commit on your desired default, and then it will be the newest, and it would be the one people get when they do hg update default, but I don't really like having junk commits in the history.
I've just got a problem with hg push command. What I did - Firstly I created 2 branches hot-fix-1 and hot-fix-2 made some changes in each branche, merged it back to default and closed those branches with the command:
hg commit --close-branch
If I start hg branches I have the following output:
default 29:e62a2c57b17c
hg branches -c gives me:
default 29:e62a2c57b17c
hot-fix-2 27:42f7bf715392 (closed)
hot-fix-1 26:dd98f50934b0 (closed)
Thus hot-fix-* branches seems to be closed. However if I try to push the changes I have the next error message:
pushing to /Users/user1/projects/mercurial/mytag
searching for changes
abort: push creates new remote branches: hot-fix-1, hot-fix-2!
(use 'hg push --new-branch' to create new remote branches)
and it does not matter which command I use hg push -b . or hg push -b default
So the question is how I can push those changes to repository without creating new branches.
P.S I used to work with git and was hoping that similar branching model can be used in Mercurial. Thanks
First, as many others have pointed out, using a named branch for short lived work is not a recommended practice. Named branches are predominantly for long lived features, or for release management.
Given that you are in this situation, there are a few options available. All of them involve modifying history (as you're obviously trying to change something you've done).
One is to just push the branches as is, learn from the experience, and move on. If the rest of the team is fine with this, then it's a case of adding --new-branch to your push command.
If the rest of the team, or you, really want the history to be clean, then you'll need to dig deeper.
If you aren't pushing, then definitely make a clone of your current repo. This way you have a copy of the original work to fall back on.
I see 2 main approaches here. Strip off the merges and rebase your branches onto default. This will get rid of the named branches or graft/transplant your changes. Both will be the same end result, but the implementation is slightly different.
If you merely want to use graft, that is now a built-in function starting with HG 2.0. It replaces the transplant plugin, and is much nicer to work with as it uses your usual merge tool if there are conflicts.
To use it, update to the default branch. Then, use the command:
hg graft -D "2085::2093 and not 2091"
the string after -D is an hg revision selection query. In your case, you'd likely only need '{start}::{end}' where start is the changeset at the start of the branch, and end is the end changeset of the branch (ignoring the merge).
If you did several merges, you'd have to pick and choose the changesets more precisely.
The other option is to strip the final merges, and use the rebase command that is part of the mq plugin.
You'll have to strip your merge changesets to get rid of them, and then update to the tip of the branch you want to keep. Select the start of the first named branch, and do a rebase. This will change the parentage of the branch (if you're familiar with Git, then this is very much like it's rebase).
Then repeat for the second branch. You should now have one long branch with the name default.
Just do the:
hg push --new-branch
It will send over those branches, but they'll be closed on the receiving end too, so no one should be bothered.
See my comment on the question for why Named Branches are best saved for long-lived entities like 'stable' and anonymous branches, bookmarks, or clones are more suitable for short lived things like hot-fixes and new features.
Your hot-fix changes were made on branches. Regardless of whether the branch is active or closed, it does exist.
To push the changes to the server (without rewriting history), you must use the --new-branch option (e.g. hg push --new-branch`).
Since you merged the branches into default, there will still only be one head (as you have already seen in your local repo).
If you really can't live with pushing the branches to the server, then you must rewrite your local history as suggested in Mikezx6r's answer.
In addition to the methods he mentioned, you can also import the changesets into a patch queue and apply them to the tip of your default.
We converted everything to Mercurial coming from CVS and so far so good. An issue we encountered today though is this situation.
Before the move to Mercurial I had a few pending changes from a while back, features that were started and later postponed for various reason. Odds are that someone else will finish those features months from now picking up from where I left off.
After cloning the new Mercurial repository I created separate branches to isolate those features.
It left me with something like this (made up rev. number)
hg update default
hg branch feature1
hg commit -m "Description of what I was doing in feature1"
hg update default
hg branch feature2
hg commit -m "Description of what I was doing feature2" (my tip is now here)
hg update default
hg push -f (to force the creation of my new branches, w/o affecting default, I haven't merged them)
During this the team have been working and pushing to our central repository so the default branch is say rev 40 (tip)
Now my push -f worked fine but positioned (tip) to my latest change -> 50:feature3 (tip). I was expecting the tip to stay at default on the central repository and just have my branches in there for someone to pick them up whenever. The graph also looks pretty funny when I use hgwebdir so I am pretty sure that's the wrong approach.
How would I do this? Should I close the branch first? Is tip actually important or just meta-data.
tip is always the most recent changeset added to the repository. From hg help revs:
The reserved name "tip" is a special tag that always identifies the most recent revision.
So long as the head of the default branch is what you expect, you'll be OK. No need to close the branch (but it's better to use hg push --new-branch if your version of Mercurial is new enough to support it).
tip is just an automatically-applied label referring to (I think) the most recent commit. Not a big deal; it's just there for convenience.
The tip label is pure meta-data and always points to the changeset with the highest revision number -- there is no more logic than that.
However, the fact that tip now points to a changeset on the feature branch wont cause you any trouble. When people make a clone, they will automatically be updated to the tip-most changeset on the default branch. So they can begin working right away after a clone. Furthermore, people who already have a clone will stay on their named branch when they run hg update. Here hg update takes you to the tip-most changeset on that named branch, e.g., on default if that is where you started.
People may think that hg update tip is the same as hg update, but that is only when there are no named branches at play. With named branches, giving an explicit revision name such as tip can changeset your named branch -- a plain hg update cannot.