i´ve installed TortoiseHg with Mercurial. Another programmer of our department created a "normal" hg repo a few months ago. Now I have to change this repo into a "bare" one. Is this even possible?
To create a bare repo when cloning use the no update flag when cloning i.e.
hg clone --noupdate ...
To convert to a bare repo update to the "null" branch use
hg update null
Related
I am working in branch A and am using eclipse mercurial plugin to manage version control.Mistakely while pulling and updating the changes from the remote repository I pulled and updated changes of all the branches of my project.Now my branch A has changes of other branches say B , C , D .. as well.
I go-ogled and found out that hg rollback is likely the solution however I am not sure.
How do i undo my last pull and update? Any suggestion would be appreciated.
For a direct hands on How to revert a Mercurial hg pull?. Also look the Mercurial FAQ (7.13).
The hg update is never a problem, just do hg update YOUR_LOVED_REVISION_NUMBER and your working directory is again with all your stuff, and only your stuff.
Assuming you and only you works in the A branch, the hg pull is either a problem, just other's work in other's branches in your backstaged Mercurial internal history. If you like your history (DAG) clean then you may hg strip those annoying branches in your local repository.
Assuming the A branch is co-worked, then the hg pull just imported the other's work to your local copy of the project.
Summarised Question:
Are github-hosted sub repositories within a mercurial/kiln repository possible, and if so are they automatically updated/cloned when the parent mercurial repository is operated on by a hg clone or hg commit command?
Detailed Question:
Following on from my question that was answered so excellently here , some of my third party code is in folders I downloaded a while ago from opensource efforts on github. Since at that stage I was not using version control, those folders where just standard folders that now been incorporated as sub repositories in mercurial.
This is obviously not ideal, as for one thing, new versions of the libraries may have bug fixes, or new features I wish to use in the future. I also may need to locally customise some of the libraries.
I can see from reading this link that it possible to have mercurial "know" about those git server urls (and revisions), so I can then have mercurial clone the github hosted libraries direct from their parent repos.
Am I right in saying that when I clone the parent (mercurial) repos, those files will be pulled from github, without having to separately manage this using git?
What is also not clear is, if I were to do this, and it transpired that code might need to be customized from within that github-cloned repository, would I need to use git to manage revisions of the local files, or would mercurial do that by proxy? eg id I were to hg commit -S would mercurial invoke git on my behalf to handle that?
Am I right in saying that when I clone the parent (mercurial) repos, those files will be pulled from github, without having to separately manage this using git?
Yes, clone of a Mercurial repository that contain subrepositories will trigger a clone of the subrepos too. It really happens on update. Mercurial notices the .hgsub file and issues the needed hg clone and git clone commands for you. It uses the information in .hgsubstate to know exactly what revision to checkout.
The subrepositories can be hosted anywhere. For a Git subrepository declared like
foo = [git]https://github.com/user/repo.git
Mercurial will simply issue the corresponding clone command:
git clone https://github.com/user/repo.git foo
It's then your reponsibility to later go into the foo repo and use Git to fetch new commits as necessary. After you fetch/pull new commits, you can make a top-level commit to record the new state of the subrepo in the .hgsubstate file. Use hg summary to see if a subrepo is dirty in this sense.
[...] would I need to use git to manage revisions of the local files, or would mercurial do that by proxy? eg id I were to hg commit -S would mercurial invoke git on my behalf to handle that?
When you edit files and make a top-level hg commit, Mercurial will make sure to commit the subrepo first (if you use hg commit -S or if ui.commitsubrepos=True). If you make a top-level push, then Mercurial will always push the subrepos first so that you always have a consistent set of changes on your server.
I'm starting with Mercurial. I'm reading the mercurial book but still have a question.
I've started my project month ago, and i have a lot of files and directories in it. Now, i want to use Mercurial and made myself an account in bitbucket. Now, i want to set this project up in Bitbucket. How can i add all those files to the bitbucket repo?
This is what i was thinking i could do:
I could try to (1) clone the empty repo (from bitbucket) (1) copy all files into that directory, (3) issue an "hg add" and after that (4) commiting.
Maybe you have a better way to do this.
Thanks!
(1)
hg clone https://ME#bitbucket.org/ME/myproject
(2)
cp existing-project/* myproject/
cd myproject
(3)
hg add
(4)
hg commit -u ME
(5)
hg push (i think i have to do this to make the changes visible)
You can simply hg init, hg add, and hg commit in the original project folder, then edit ~/project/.hg/hgrc to add a default-push location of your bitbucket repo (you can clone it to a temporary folder to get the hgrc created for you which you can copy into your project, even, without needing to RTFM for the right syntax.)
Because of the distributed nature of mercurial, this hgrc entry is the only thing relating your local repo to bitbucket at all; you can even hg push https://ME#bitbucket.org/ME/myproject without making the link explicit anywhere. Each copy of a repository is completely self-sufficient.
Wooble's answer is ok, but it's missing something, so I'm supplementing here.
When you first create an empty repository (by hg init or creating on bitbucket), it has no identity. However, as soon as it has any changesets, it has an identity and you can only push/pull between it and repositories that share that identity.
If you had 2 repositories A and B for separate projects, you wouldn't be able push/pull between them. Once you create a new repository on bitbucket you can push changesets from either A or B to that repo once. If you push changes from B that first time, the bitbucket repository is now related to B. You can't then push changesets from A into it, or pull changesets into A from it.
So when Wooble says,
...this hgrc entry is the only thing relating your local repo to bitbucket at all;
That is correct while it is still empty as it is not related to any repositories until it has changesets. And you still need that address to be able to push/pull between your local repo and the bitbucket repo, but once you've pushed changesets to it it also has that identity that relates it to your local repo.
I am looking for best practices to do the following:
When I need to implement a feature or fix a bug, I am creating new Mercurial repository from the main one (a trunk).
Then, within some days, or weeks, I am implementing the task in newly created repository, making commits and periodically merging with trunk. After the code in new repository will pass all code reviews, I should provide a repository with all changes collapsed into single revision.
My common way to do this (rdiff extension should be enabled):
hg clone ~/repos/trunk ~/repos/new-collapsed
cd ~/repos/new-collapsed
hg diff ~/repos/new > new.diff
patch -p1 < new.diff
hg commit
This works almost well except when there are binary files present in the changes from ~/repos/new. Another way could be:
hg clone ~/repos/trunk ~/repos/new-collapsed
cd ~/repos/new-collapsed
hg pull ~/repos/new
hg update
hg rollback
then resolve possible conflicts and manually commit the changes
Both ways look for me somewhat ugly and non-native, so I am looking how this operation could be simplified. I've played with rebase extension, but seems its hg rebase --collapse command does not work with workflow described above.
Any ideas are welcome.
Sounds like a good case for mercurial queues.
I do something similar with the histedit extension.
My workflow is something like:
clone a central repo
commit incremental changes to local repo
clone my local repo to make collapsed repo
hg histedit and select/discard/fold the revisions as needed
hg push the collapsed repo to central repo
pull central repo to local or refresh local from scratch
I ensure that my local repo never gets pushed to the central repo by adding an invalid default-push path to the .hg/hgrc file in the local repo root directory.
Solved: Just add
[diff]
git = True
to your hgrc file, and then use my first solution with rdiff extension, replacing patch with hg import:
hg clone ~/repos/trunk ~/repos/new-collapsed
cd ~/repos/new-collapsed
hg diff ~/repos/new > new.diff
hg import new.diff
hg commit
Is there a way to clone a repo that comes with subrepos, but without having Mercurial pull all the subrepos?
It appears that while hg clone -U can be used to obtain an empty clone of a repo, there's nothing that would convince hg update to avoid starting off by pulling all of the subrepos.
I should point out that it is crucial to retain the ability to easily sync to the head revision after creating such a clone.
This should do what you want:
REM Take a new clone, but do not update working directory
hg clone --noupdate %REPO_PATH% %DESTINATION%
REM Update working directory but exclude the certain subprojects
hg revert --all --rev %BRANCH% --exclude %SUBREPO_PATH_1% --exclude %SUBREPO_PATH_2%
This answer may add more than the question required, but provides some valuable notes on working with Mercurial when you can't update do to a bad subrepository path or revision.
Step 1: Clone the repository without any updates
hg clone --noupdate source_repository destination_repository
Step 2: Use revert to get the right files
hg revert --all --rev revision_number --exclude subrepo_1 --exclude subrepo_2 ...
At this point, you have a new changeset; you may need to make sure the parent revision is correct. When I did this, my new changeset's parent was changeset 0. To fix this I had to set the parent changeset AND switch branches (since my changeset was on a different branch).
Step 3: Change the parent of the current changes
hg debugsetparents revision_number
hg branch branch_name
That should do it.
Found a hacky way. It still requires all subrepos to be checked out once, but afterwards they can be deleted.
Clone the whole lot, including subrepos. No way around this.
Delete subrepos
hg remove .hgsub
I tried to convince Mercurial to hg remove .hgsub before the subrepos are cloned, but the best I got is not removing .hgsub: file is untracked.
If you have a subrepo, a working directory must include some version of that subrepo. That version may be a fixed older revision if specified, or the tip if not.
You cannot update your repo without getting the subrepos; if you had a complete working dir without them, you shouldn't be using subrepos - use truly external repos instead.
If your subrepos are pegged against a certain remote version, then updates after the first will not trigger a subrepo update - they're already up-to-date. But for the initial creation of the working directory, you will have to do a remote pull.
You can trick Mercurial by munging the hgsubstate file. But really, your model and the conceptual model differ, so you're probably not a good match for subrepos if this is a concern.
edit: If you find yourself cloning and then updating to the tip many times, try using local branches or mq instead. That way you only have to do the initial clone once.