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).
Related
In Mercurial , How to clone from a specific revision to the last one using ?
For example repo A have one line history from changeset 0 to changeset 100. and I want to clone A to my local repo from changeset 90 to last one (100).
Looking through the help, I noticed the -r flag but that only clone 1 specific changeset.
And if there is no way to do it can somebody explain why its not implemented ? its considered a bad thing to do ?
Thanks.
You can't.
The current state of the project is all changesets from the beginning of time up until the specific changeset, you cannot prune older changesets without rewriting the history of the repository to permanently get rid of them. This will also make the repository incompatible with the original that contains the old history.
In short, you will have to do one of the following:
Prune the old history, permanently getting rid of it, which will make it impossible to push/pull with original clones that still has that history
Live with the history
The parameters to the clone command that specifies revsets thus only allow you to set an upper limit. This may allow you to avoid whole branches, if they aren't merged into the branch you end up cloning, but the clone command will always clone everything from the beginning of time.
For every changeset you clone, every predecessor will be cloned as well, and this cannot be avoided.
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.
Is it
pull
update
merge
commit
push
? Or can you do the commit first?
I don't like the idea of pulling and merging without having a version of my local code backed up somewhere in case the merge explodes, but presumably you have to do the merge before you can do a push, because you can't have conflicts in the central repo. Not quite understanding this whole process yet; used to my nice simple SVN.
I recommend to always commit before pulling in changes to your working directory, unless you are 100% sure that your changes and the changes to be merged into your working directory will not conflict.
If you do an updating pull (hg pull; hg update, or shorter hg -u pull) and have any outstanding non-committed changes, any changes coming from outside will be combined with your changes. When conflicts happen, it might be difficult to decide how the merge result should look like, because you can't easily distinguish between your changes and the changes merged in.
When you did commit first, it is much easier to decide how the merge result should look like, because you can always look at both parents of the merge.
So, in effect it is:
hg commit
hg pull -u (if no merge necessary, go to 5)
hg merge
hg commit
hg push
Update: As Martin Geisler has pointed out, it is possible to get at the "original" changed version of a file using:
hg resolve --unmark the-file
hg resolve --tool internal:local the-file
or for all files at the same time:
hg resolve --unmark --all
hg resolve --tool internal:local -all
Still, I find the "commit first" system nicer. At the end, it is personal preference...
I don't know as there's a standard per se, but one of the ideas behind Mercurial is that you can commit as often as you like since it goes to your local repository. So you can commit to your heart's content as much as you like before you pull updates.
I tend not to commit very often, saving up for when I'm preparing to push, but that's me. I can see the utility of committing early and often. I do pull updates frequently as I work to cut down on merge fun.
One other thing I do is to keep a parallel clone of my working repo (cloned from the same repository as my working repo, not cloned from my working repo) so that I can check the original state of a file easily, and if need-be check in an out-of-band emergency fix or what-have-you without complicating my current change set.
Do edits
Commit
Goto 1 until satisfied
Pull
Merge & commit
Push if you want to.
Definitely commit before trying to do something complex like a merge. I don't think mercurial will allow you to merge before committing, but even if it did, what if the merge goes wrong. You have no pre-merge revision to go back to.
Commit early, commit often.
If you don't, you are missing out on a huge benefit of a DVCS.
but presumably you have to do the merge before you can do a push, because you can't have conflicts in the central repo
Wrong statement and poor understanding of distributed workflow and parallel development.
You can merge heads before push, but not have or must. Push can put any data to repo, if it needed and intended to be so
By default, push will not allow creation of new heads at the destination,
since multiple heads would make it unclear which head to use. In this
situation, it is recommended to pull and merge before pushing.
(NB: "recommended to pull and merge before" statement)
You can use commit-pull-merge, stash-pull-unstash-merge, perform fetch with modified WC and merge on the fly, don't merge heads at all or sporadically and push --force with +1 heads - there are not common rule for everybody. And any and every such workflow doesn't produce "conflicts in the central repo", but only different DAG.
Each point of divergence, which appear in case of existing your and other changeset from commmon parent in your (or even central) repo is a point of starting anonymous branches in Hg, which (technically) are absolutely legal, applicable and usual way. How they handled is defined by policy and agreement between developers, PM, QA-team and others
I, personally, prefer finish my task (in one or more amount of commits), after it pull and maybe merge, when it approved by development-policy
I've struggled to understand how branching is beneficial. I can't push to a repo with 2 heads, or 2 branches... so why would I ever need/use them?
First of all, you can push even with two heads, but since you probably don't want to do that, the default behavior is to prevent you from doing it. You can, however, force the push to go through.
Now, as for branching, let's take a simple scenario in a non-distributed version control system, like Subversion.
Let's assume you have a colleague that is working in the same project as you. The current latest changeset in the Subversion repository is revision 100, you both update to this locally so that now both of you have the same files.
Ok, now your colleague has already been working on his changes for a couple of hours now, and so he commits. This brings the central repository up to revision 101. You're still on revision 100 locally, and you're still working on your changes.
At some point, you complete, and you want to commit, but Subversion won't let you. It says you have to update first, so you start the update process.
The update process wants to take your changes, and pretend you actually started with revision 101 instead of 100. If your changes are not in conflict with whatever it was your colleague committed, all is hunky dory, but if your changes are in conflict, you have a problem.
Now you have to merge your changes with his changes, and things can go haywire. For instance, you might end up merging one file OK, the second file OK, or so you think, and then the third file, and you suddenly discover that you've got some of the details wrong, it would've been better to merge the second file differently.
Unless you made a backup of your changes before updating, and sooner or later you will forget, you have a problem.
Now, the above scenario is actually quite common. Well, perhaps not the merging part, it depends on how many is working in the same area or files at the same time, but the "must update before committing" part is quite common with Subversion.
So how does Mercurial do it?
Well, Mercurial commits locally, it doesn't talk to any remote repository at all, so it won't stop you from committing.
So, let's try the above scenario again, just in Mercurial this time.
The tipmost changeset in the remote repository is revision 100. You both have cloned this down, and you're both starting to work on the changes, from revision 100.
Your colleague completes his changes and commits, locally. He then pushes his changeset up to the central repository, bringing the tip there up to revision 101.
You then complete your changes, and commit, also locally, and then you want to push, but you get the error message you've already discovered, and is asking about.
So how is this different?
Well, your changes are now committed, there is no way, unless you try really hard to accidentally lose them or destroy them.
Here's the 3 repositories in play and their current state:
Colleague ---98---99---100---A
Central ---98---99---100---A
You ---98---99---100---B
If you were to push, and was allowed to do this (or force the push through), the Central repository would look like this:
Central ---98---99---100---A
\
+--B
Two heads. If your colleague now pulled, which one should he continue working from? This question is the reason Mercurial will by default prevent you from causing this.
So instead you pull, and you get the above state in your own repository.
In other words, you can chose to impact your own repository and create multiple heads there, but you are not imposing that problem on anyone else.
You then merge, the same type of operation you had to do in Subversion, except your changeset is safe, it was committed, and you won't accidentally corrupt or destroy it. If, mid-merge, you want to start over, you can, nothing lost, no harm done.
After the merge, your local repository looks like this:
You ---98---99---100---A----M
\ /
+--B--+
This is now safe to push, and if your colleague now pulls, he knows that he has to continue from the M changeset, the one that merged his and your changes.
The above description is what happens due to Mercurials distributed nature.
You can also name branches, to make them more permanent. For instance, you might want to name a branch "stable", to signal that any changesets on that branch have been thoroughly tested and is safe for release to customers or to put into production. Then you would only merge changes onto that branch when said testing has been completed.
The nature, however, is the same as the above description. Whenever more than one person works on a project with Mercurial, you will get branches, and that's a good thing.
Whenever more than one clone of a repo is made and commits are made in those clones, branches happen, whether you name them by using the hg branch command or not. My philosophy is, you might as well give them a name. It makes things less confusing.
A good explanation of mercurial branches: http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/
I'm a single developer using Mercurial to create a program. I have so far committed at every step of developing, and I have messed things up and want to work on something else.
How shall I go to a previous state (ie. rollback) and then create a branch, maintaining the newer states?
Does rollback ever delete anything? Should that be all I do? Just rollback untill I'm at the place where I want, edit, then commit? Will I be able to merge the changesets later, or at least look at them? Of course I can just save this repository, rollback, and then create new changesets, then merge the two repositories?
I'm new to SCM and of course DSCM, so be gentle :)
You don't want to use hg rollback, that only erases exactly one change (the most recent). See You Can Only Roll Back Once in the hg book.
To make a branch from an earlier revision, you need to find the revision number you want to branch from and run:
hg clone -r <revnum> <source repository> <destination repository>
You can then do your changes in the newly-cloned repository (which will not contain any of the history that came after the revision number you specified) and then merge those changes back into the original later, if you wish.
The other answer will work but it is excessive. All you need to do is:
hg up <revnum>
and your local working folder will be updated to the state of files at the specified revision. You can just work from there.
As soon as you commit it will create an anonymous branch automatically. Your original commits remain preserved but out of your way.
This is the simplest possible approach (IMHO) which I would recommend starting with.