I am currently using Mercurial for sub-version control in my project. Now I am suppose to work on a new branch 2.7 but I confuse to work with branch 2.6, I have developed the new feature which the feature on 2.7 but I build on 2.6. And now I want to move this feature to branch 2.7 properly but I don't know how can I move it properly. Is there any way?
I would recommend using hg graft, which copies changes from one branch to another and unlike hg rebase is not destructive (relevant if you're doing this for the first time and may be making mistakes or if you need the feature to be present on both branches).
To copy changes to a branch dest-branch, do the following. First update to the branch you want to copy the changes to:
hg update dest-branch
Then, use graft to copy the revisions you want from the original branch, e.g.:
hg graft -r start..end
where start is the first revision you want to graft from the source branch and end is the last revision.
You may encounter conflicts if they can't be merged cleanly, which you have to resolve them (as you'd do in a merge), then use hg graft --continue to graft the remaining revisions.
The magic word is RTFM - hg help rebase
Related
Is there a way to disassociate a file on a feature branch from its parent branch, in that changes to the file on the parent branch will no longer merge into the feature branch?
ie: app/index.html [develop] changes should no longer merge into app/index.html [feature/redesign] when merging develop into feature/redesign ?
You should ask yourself why you want to do this, it sounds backwards. Anyway, the following should work: perform the merge as usual, don't care about what happens to app/index.html (that is, in case of conflict just accept something, don't think about it). Then, before doing the merge commit, revert that file to its previous revision on redesign branch. To make an example:
(on branch redesign)
hg merge develop
hg revert -r redesign app/index.html
Now hg status will still show app/index.html as modified, but if you look at its contents, they are the same as before the merge. Do the merge commit as usual:
hg commit -m 'Merge develop into redesign'
Note: you must do this each time you do a merge, there is no "dissociate" capability.
Just delete and re-create it on the branch.
I forgot to switch my working copy back to the correct branch and made some changes.
How can I commit the current changes (but not all other changes in the current branch) to my original branch?
If I understand correctly, you have uncommitted changes that need to be on top of another branch.
My prefered way is to use the shelf functionality to save all your changes, update to the correct branch, and then un-shelf your changes back on the proper branch.
To do it on the command line, save the result of hg diff in a patch file, then update to the other branch and hg import <patch>.
Finally, just commit your changeset, as you wanted.
Shelve extension allow you to store WIP, get clean working dir, update to needed branch, release shelve
MQ exension (somehow overkill) allow to do the same thing, as shelve
At last, you can commit into wrong branch and rebase this changeset to the correct parent, using Rebase extension
My use case is this:
I am working on a new feature and I have several commits on that feature.
Since it was a minor feature, I didn't even consider doing the feature in a feature branch.
However. Now my boss comes along and tells me to fix a bug on the same branch that I am working on (default).
To fix that I'd like to create a feature branch for my feature, push all my existing (unpushed) commits into that branch.
So I'd like to create a branch just before my first commit and then somehow move all my commits to that branch.
How can I do this?
There’s two ways to approach this, depending on your preference:
In a new repository.
Make a new clone of your repository, and do the bug fix you need to make there. Then push it to the main repository when you’re done, and continue where you left off in the original repository. Pull and merge to get the new changes as usual.
In the existing repository.
Update to the changeset before your local changes, and just start fixing and committing there. This creates a new anonymous branch. When you’re done, push using push -r ., this will only push the changes that are included in the working copy. After this, merge with your original branch (hg merge) and continue where you left off.
Note that you can bookmark the feature branch with hg bookmark if you do not feel comfortable with leaving your changes unlabeled. Also you can easily find back any heads you left behind using hg heads.
Personally I prefer to work in a new clean clone, as you don’t need to worry about branching and where to leave uncommitted changes. However if your project setup is complicated it may be more convenient to reuse the existing repo.
For this situation you can fix it by rebasing (which may need enabling in your configuration).
On your branch, update to the revision before the change-sets you want to move:
hg up -r<revison>
This assumes contiguous revisions need moving.
Create a new branch:
hg branch "TempWork"
Put a dummy commit onto it in order to get a new revision:
hg commit -m"New Branch"
Then perform the rebase from the first of the change-sets you want to move (it moves descendants automatically) and specify the new branch revision as the destination:
hg rebase -s<base revision> -d<new branch revision>
Then update back onto your main-line branch.
Fourth method: Using mq-patches
You have to have mq extension enabled and initiated for repo
On hotfix moment you
convert feature-commits into set of mq-patches (hg qimport)
Unapply all patches in set (hg qpop -a)
Code hotfix, commit
...
Finish and test hotfix on clean codebase
Apply all patches in set (hg qpush -a), fix possible conflicts
Convert patches back to changeset (hg qfinish)
In my repo, I have the revisions 1 to 10. I've pushed up to 5 (so the next hg push would publish revisions 6-10).
But I have to interrupt my work now and the result isn't 100% complete. So I'd like to move the revisions 6-10 into a new "experimental" branch to allow someone else to complete the work without disrupting the sources for everyone.
How can I add a branch to a non-tip revision (in my case: Starting with revision 6)? Or should I use a completely different approach?
You cannot apply a branch name after the fact without modifying your history.
The most simple approach is to ask the other users to use revision 5 as the parent for any changes they create. For example, the other users would:
hg clone <your repo> or even hg clone --rev 5
hg update -r 5
work, work, work
hg commit
When they commit a change, it will create a second head on the default branch, but that should not create any problems. You will simply need to merge the two heads together once your experimental changes are complete.
That being said, moving your changesets onto a branch can be accomplished using Mercurial Queues (MQ). The following sequence shows how it be done:
hg qinit (Create a new patch queue)
hg qimport --rev 6:10 (import r6-10 into a new patch queue)
hg qpop -a (remove all patches from your working copy)
hg branch <branch name> (create your new experimental branch)
hg qpush -a (apply all the patches to your branch)
hg qfinish -a (convert all patches to permanent changesets)
Tim already has good suggestions. Additionally you could push your experimental changes into a distinct experimental clone on your central server (I guess you use one). This clone could also be used by other developers to push their not-yet-finished work in order to let others review or continue it. It is also clear that this clone's code is not ready to be used. Once some task is finished, the corresponding changesets can be pushed to the stable repository.
Actually named branches are a good idea for your case, but the fact that their names are burned into history mostly is more a problem than a feature. IMHO Git's branch names are more practically. However, to some extend you could also handle your case with bookmarks, which are pushable since Mercurial 1.7 (not sure here). That is you bookmark revision 5 with something like stable (or whatever you agree on in your team) and revision 10 gets bookmarked with something like Aarons-not-finished-work. The other developers would then just pull stable, except your colleague who is supposed to continue your work, who would pull the other bookmark. However, personally I did not use a such workflow yet, so I cannot say if it performs well in practice.
I've been using Mercurial for a few weeks now and don't understand why when Mercurial comes to merge committed changes from two repositories it does it in the working copy?
Surely the merge could happen without the use of the working copy removing the need to shelf changes etc.
It just doesn't seem necessary to involve the working copy. Am I missing something?
There is only one working copy per repository, by definition:
The working directory is the top-level directory in a repository, in which
the plain versions of files are available to read, edit and build.
Unless your file system descends from Schrödinger's cat, you cannot have two versions of the same file at the same time, thus you cannot have two working copies.
Nevertheless, it's indeed theoretically possible to use something like a ephemeral clone (per #Ry4an) to act as the working copy of a merge, resolve conflicts there, commit, then make it disappear. You'd get a beautiful merge changeset and your intact working copy.
I can think of several ways to achieve this:
Petition hg team to do it in core
Write an extension to implement the ephemeral clone or some other way
Shelve with a temporary changeset
Shelve with MQ
I would strongly recommend #4, as I would for almost all workflow scenarios. It took me a few good days to grok MQ, but once I did I've never had to turn back.
In an MQ workflow, your working copy is always the current patch. So for the merge situation you would do:
hg qrefresh
hg qpop -a
hg update -r<merge first parent>
hg merge [-r<merge second parent>]
hg commit
hg update qparent
hg qgo <working copy patch>
You don't have to pop all patches in #2. I always do that whenever I need to deal with real changesets to avoid mixing them up with patches.
Solution #3 is really the same as #4, since a patch is a temporary changeset by definition (this is really the only thing you need for understanding MQ). It's just different commands:
hg commit -A
hg update -r<merge first parent>
hg merge [-r<merge second parent>]
hg commit
hg update -r<working copy changeset parent>
hg revert -a -r<working copy changeset>
hg strip <working copy changeset>
If you want to keep the working copy changeset and continue to commit, simply update to it in #5.
From your question it seems like you already know #4 but don't like shelving. I think shelving is good because merging is a fundamentally different task than coding (changing working copy), and shelving makes the context switch explicit and safe.
I didn't write Mercurial, so I can't say why they did it that way, but here are some of the positive results of that decision:
you can look over the results of the merge before you commit it
you can edit the results of the merge before you commit it
you're encouraged to commit frequently
If you really want to do a merge and have stuff in your working dir that you can't bear to commit don't bother with shelve just do:
cd ..
hg clone myrepo myrepo-mergeclone
hg -R myrepo-mergeclone merge
hg -R myrepo-mergeclone push myrepo
On the same file system clone is near instantaneous and uses hardlinks under the covers so it takes up almost no space past that of the temporary working copy.
As mentioned in the chapter "Merge" of HgInit:
The merge command, hg merge, took the two heads and combined them.
Then it left the result in my working directory.
It did not commit it. That gives me a chance to check that the merge is correct.
Such check can include conflicts in merge, that the user has to review:
In KDiff3, you see four panes
The top left is the original file.
Top center shows Rose her version.
Top right shows Rose my version.
The bottom pane is an editor where Rose constructs a merged file with the conflicts resolved.
So you need a working directory (a view for the merge) in order to resolve fully a merge.