My team is running Mercurial hosted on our own server, and we ran into this issue:
We have a project called Main Project. In this project, there is a file called Cool_Functions.code. I needed to make some changes to Cool_Functions.code and bring it into my own Prototyping Project, which is more of a Proof of Concept.
The problem I have is that I don't necessarily want to commit Prototyping Project and my additions to Cool_Functions.code to the Main Project repository since it contains things that may just go away. Also, other team members might have their own Prototypes so creating a branch for each proof of concept would just mean creating a lot of eventually dead branches.
What are some strategies we can use in mercurial to be able to share our Prototyping projects?
Related
I have my Banana Pi set up as my Mercurial server. It works well for me for my software as generally speaking I have firmware and that's about it in my repositories. I can access it via open VPN from anywhere in the world. However, I have started to use version control for my PCB files as well now, due to a new CAD system which complicates my old, crude but effective way of doing my PCB archiving and backup. (Also, everything in my new CAD system, all the PCBs and schamtics, are text files which makes version control work nicely.)
So, with Mercurial I started doing as I did with software and creating a new repo for my PCB for one of the boards I'm updating for a customer, and immediately came across an issue that svn seems to cope with easily and I was wondering whether Mercurial can do the same.
I have my BH0001 project repository which has all the embedded C in it and I have started creating a new issue of the PCB for which the C code is used. I had to create a new Mercurial repo called BH0001_pcb to differentiate between code and PCB. With svn you can have a project repo and then Hardware and Software directories within the project number, but still be able to check out the two different types of files to different places independently.
I could, of course, clone the BH0001 software repository to a local machine, add the PCB info in a new folder in the local Mercurial repo send it all back to the server and it would be perfectly happy. The problem then comes when checking out because I would be cloning both firmware and PCB on to a machine when I might only want one or the other.
Also, this goes against how I store stuff locally. In my /username/home directory I have a Software directory and a CAD directory and within those I have projects. So I would have:
home/CAD/CustomerName/BH0001
and
home/Software/CustomerName/BH0001.
If I'm to carry on using my current method do I have to:
Change my local directory structures to be something like:
home/Projects/CustomerName/BH0001/CAD
and
home/Projects/CustomerName/BH0001/Software
Suck it up and use things like ProjectName_pcb for separate repos.
Some other way I can't think of/can't find/am unaware of? e.g. There's a way of checking out part of a Mercurial repository to one directory and a different part of the repo to a different directory.
Or should I just use svn if I really want to carry on as I have?
With default mercurial you currently cannot do partial repository clones as you can do with SVN. So your approach to use separate repositories is a good choice.
However there ways to achieve a similar result: sub-repositories. In your case I'd create a parent repository which contains your two current repositories as sub-repositories. Mind though, sub-repositories have some rough edges, so read the linked page carefully - I'd like to especially stress that it's good practise to have a parent repo which basically only contains the 'real' repos but not much on its own.
There exist ideas like a thin or narrow clone (which is somewhat identical to what SVN does), but I haven't seen them in production.
I am an applied mathematician and I have recently joined a project that involves the development of production code for our scientific application. The code base is not small and it's deployed as part of a web application.
When I joined, the code was miraculously maintained without a revision control system. There was a central folder in a server and researchers would copy from it when they needed to work with the code. Inside this root directory there was a set of directories with different versions of the code, so people would start working on the latest version they found and create a new one with their modifications.
I created a Mercurial repository, added all code versions to it and convinced everyone to use it. However, since moving to Mercurial, we have felt little if any need to upgrade version numbers, even tough using hg copy allows us to keep revision history.
Here's where I need your advice on best practices of maintaining this code base. Does it make sense under a RCS to keep folders with different versions in a repo? If we keep a single copy of our code in the repo, what's the most common way to track versions? The README files? Should we keep snapshots of the code outside the repo specifying versions? Does it make sense to keep things as they are? What strategies do you use?
Our team is a bunch of scientists and no one has experience on how to maintain such a repo, so I'm interested in what is commonly done.
If you are going to use a version control system, forget about those version folders. Completly. Mercurial will do that for you, the repository is a complete history of all files of the project.
A common way to track version numbers is with tags. You assign a tag with the version number to a changeset.
To help you, as a "getting started guide" in version control, I suggest this book: Version Control By Example. It's free, and it starts from the beginning, it talks about CVCS, DVCS, fundamentals, what a repository is, basic commands, etc. It has also some interesting analogies, like the 3D file system: Directories x Files x Time. The book is fun and easy to understand, I highly recommend it.
I also recommend some GUI software like TortoiseHg. In daily usage, I spend most of the time in the console, but the GUI is very handy specially in the beginning when you still don't know all the commands. And the best part is the graph, you have a visual feedback of what is going on.
This is a good and quick introduction to Mercurial, it even starts out by talking about how using folders to keep different versions is not so great.
I think you're probably on the wrong track if you are using the hg copy command, I've never needed it ;)
The tutorial teaches the command line version of hg, which I personally prefer. When you need a better overview of your repository, you can run "hg serve" and open localhost:8000 in your web browser. I prefer that over TortoiseHG, but I realize that many people want a pure GUI tool.
We are working on a big project organized in 4 teams (website, server, applet, deployment). Sometimes members of each teams have to make minor changes in the code of the other team (for instance: a member from the applet team has to add a field in the website, or a member of the server team has to change a deployment script).
For the moment every team has its own mercurial repository, and we are using version number to organize dependencies between teams. (The applet version 3.4 needs the website version 1.7)
I think that our mercurial organisation is not optimal, my idea is to have one big mercurial repository MASTER, which will be cloned in WEBSITE, SERVER, APPLET and DEPLOYMENT. Each member of each team can have access to the code of others and they are not impacted by the commit of other teams because of the different clones.
What the SO community think about that ?
You should maintain separate repositories for separate components, and other separate repos for any pieces shared between components (libraries if you will). Then use the subrepository feature to have the component repos include the shared stuff.
Merging everything into one large repo works well in svn, but in Mercurial, or any DVCS, you're better off with a composition of smaller repos.
Currently, we're using Mercurial as our VCS on BitBucket.
The way the project is right now, is a solution with all the code checked in with all the developers working on the "default" branch. Every morning, we create a build release and the QA have it.
I'm wondering whether it makes more sense to branch each dev on his own since each dev is working on a project in the solution.
The other main point is how would this affect the QAs? Would they need to merge all the branches prior to building?
I'm really confused about this.
As mentioned in "When should you make a branch", you use branching to isolate a development effort.
In your case, you would isolate each project in the solution on which you are working.
That would allows for:
intermediate commits, project per project
QA testing for each project
But that would also require a merge in a common branch for all the project to be tested together as a solution.
See HgInit (from Joel Spolsky) for more on that kind of collaboration workflow.
In "Repository Architecture", Joel illustrates two development effort isolated in two different teams, but still including a synchronization (merge) effort at the end.
My company is switching from Subversion to Mercurial. We're using .NET for our product. We have a solution with about a dozen projects that are separate modules with no dependencies on each other. We're using a central repo on a server with push/pull for our integration build.
I'm trying to figure out if I should create one central repo with all the projects in it, or if I should create a separate repo for each project. One argument for separate repos is that branching the individual modules would be easier, but an argument for a single repo is easier management and workflow.
I'm very new to hg and DVCS, so some guidance is greatly appreciated.
ETA: At hginit.com, Joel says:
[I]f you’re used to having one big
gigantic repository for the whole
company, where some people only check
out and work on subdirectories that
they care about, this isn’t a very
good way to work with Mercurial—you’re
better off having lots of smaller
repositories for each project.
It'd be great if someone could expand on this or point me to more documentation.
One thing you should take into consideration here is the fact that Mercurial does not support checking out directories like subversion does. One typical subversion setup is to have one giant repo with multiple separate projects in it, and when somebody needs code they will just checkout a subdirectory containing that project. You can't do this in mercurial. You either take the whole repo, or nothing. If everybody working on these projects does not need all the code, all the time, you might want to split it up into separate repositories.
EDIT: This link might be helpful in setting things up, in particular the "Publishing Multiple Repositories" section.
if completely separate repos don't work for you maybe have each project as a subrepo of some umbrella repo. I have to say that seperate repos sounds like what you need though given that each project sounds totally independent.
I'm fairly new to Mercurial myself (my company is making the leap from SourceSafe) so I don't know what more experience would say.
For me it makes sense to have one repository per Visual Studio Solution. If your modules are truly not dependent on each other, why are they all in the same solution? If you have a good reason for them all being in one solution, then that's probably the reason to keep them in one repository. If there's not a good reason for them to be in one solution, then a repository and a solution for each makes more sense to me.
Edit: So, since all the modules are built together and need to integrate, that would push me towards a single solution and a single repository.
Mercurial does a great job of merging, but the one thing I've had issues with is the solution file when merging the addition of more than one project at a time. It gets confused with multiple End Project lines. So, as long as you aren't adding new projects very often, your merges should be smooth.
From my experience, and not based upon studies etc, I would say that each logical blob is a repository. If you share code between subprojects, they need to be in the same repo. There will be full subrepo functionality, but currently (apr 2010) it's not fully implemented.