We are switching to Mercurial. We are have been using SVN for a number of years. I recall reading somewhere that Twitter only have two branches in their source control. A production branch and a dev branch. This I think will suit us because we offer a service and there is only one instance of it running and we control it completely so we dont have to worry about versions. Just bring able to do fixes for production and maybe merge that change into dev if the issue exists in the dev branch too.
Is this approach appropriate for Mercurial? Are there any hidden gotchas that we should be aware of? We plan do follow a more traditional layout with release branches for the one or two products that we have that we retail.
Yes, no gotchas. The most recognized branching model, for both Git and Mercurial, can be found here, which gives an outline of a more complexe structure than you are thinking of using.
And even when your environment continue to grow, mercurial will still be able to handle your changing needs.
Are there any hidden gotchas that we should be aware of?
Yes, they are, if you will have more than one simultaneous tasks in devel you'll get hardly readable and understandable history with a lot of anonymous branches in devel rather fast
Yes, Mercurial achieves fully your approach. May be the workflow you are proposing is this. The Mercurial code or the Python code are some examples of development with really few branches.
In Mercurial the default branch is used as default when cloning, so is usually used as the development branch. Other branches are used as feature or stable branches, but is up to you. Actually for not so long features and issues one may use bookmarks on the development branch.
And remember to commit often :)
Related
My development env: Windows 7, TortoiseHg, ASP.NET 4.0/MVC3
Test branch: code on test server
Prod branch: code on production server
This is my current branching model. The reason to branch out every task (feature) is because some features go to live slower. So in above graph, task 1 finished earlier (changeset #5), and merge into test branch for testing. However, due to bug or modification of original request, changesets #10, #12 have been made. While task 2 has finished testing #8 and pushed to live #9 already.
My problem is every time when modifying task branch (like #10, #12), I have to do another merge to test branch (#11, #13), this makes the graph very messy.
Is there any way to solve this issue? Or any better branching model?
It really sounds like you are trying to implement a feature branching strategy. However, based on your diagram, I think you're missing a few steps and/or are merging the wrong branches. In essence, you should probably have more like 4 lines of development there, plus 1 representing all feature branches. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a nice diagram, except for one talking about Git and a workable branching strategy here. The diagram, though, better explains what you are looking for, even if you are using a different DVCS like Mercurial (my fav). Using Steve Losh's Guide to Branching in Mercurial and the Hg Book, you should be able to implement a good feature branching strategy that works for you. Steve's got pros/cons for each approach.
And, no, you don't need to clone to branch properly. Mercurial has named branches that allow you to switch between branches easily if you are commonly working on multiple unfinished items and/or performing code reviews/testing for other developers. With any kind of Web-based development with IIS, named branches are easier to work with as things don't move and different version can continue to work with the same configuration under IIS.
I must say, though, that feature branching or whatever name you give it is almost always a bad idea as branches that run too long (say, a year, which I have seen with disastrous results) can be almost impossible to merge back in unless you are frequently (daily) managing synchronization between the feature branch and its parent. This type of maintenance overhead is not worth the trouble and you're better off sticking to trunk-based development with release branches for bug fixes and fix your code to abstract code that is production-used and unfinished work.
When you want to work on a new feature, you better make clone from test repo. Branches in mercurial are supposed to stay unrelated... Imagine that you made a release v1.0 and going to work on v2.0 of your application (default branch). You will create branch v1.0 to keep it updated with bug fixes.
You can use separate repositories for each branch instead. Then rebase the changes on the latest changeset. This could reduce the number of merges.
My company's product is module-based, meaning we ship with five base modules and users can purchase additional ones. We're using Mercurial, to which we are relatively new, for our source control, and since we've released 1.0 of our product, managing the separate module development has been a nightmare.
We want to be able to release minor bugfix updates without having to wait for particular module development to be complete, so one repo for everything doesn't work very well. I read about branching but the Definitive Guide seems to suggest that branching is temporary, and that merging with it is difficult.
Ideally, we'd have a base repo that is the product and then different repos (or branches) with the extra modules, so that QA could build the main product and the main+addons separately, while the developers working on ModuleA don't impact the developers working on BugfixB. I tried this with multiple subrepos but it ended up corrupting my repositories.
Should I be looking at using named branches? Or bookmarks?
I'm looking for suggestions on best practices on how we can take advantage of Mercurial's features to make this process easier.
Thanks!
There is a good tutorial about branching at http://nvie.com/git-model. The main point is to have
a release branch which contains only merges from completed release/bugfix branches
development branches for bug fixes or features
own branches for long-term features
Also there is a reference about the technical differences in mercurial branches at http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/
Branching is your solution. I consider named branches to be a Good Thing. However, you should be aware that named branches require a certain level of forethought and discipline in use.
I would suggest that each bug-fix gets its own branch. Developers will fork off that branch, do the bugfix, merge back into the feature-branch.
I would consider splitting your modules into separate repositories, one for each product. Possibly that's not very useful; you'll have to go over different use cases there and determine how the workflow/compile-flow would go.
I don't see why you'd consider having different subrepos for this when the file history is virtually the same throughout - this is a prime job for branches. The only complication is being able to cherry-pick patches for each branch - that may require you to export a patch (or set of patches) and apply them individually to each branch. It's a bit more awkward than it should be, but it's no harder than doing the same across different repositories.
I think the question blurs two different issues:
You have a modular product
You have separate development cycles for each module
For handling the modular product you should use different repositories for each module and bring them together using subrepos as appropriate for each customer configuration. It appears you're already doing this but are having corruption issues. This is certainly the correct way to go so you need to bottom-out whether the corruption is coming from a Mercurial bug or user error.
For handling separate development cycles then personally I'd go for module clones but named branches would also be fine.
Hope this helps.
I am new to Mercurial as well, but I think that your problem is not specific to it.
You need to think about the process of releasing code and the parties involved, and map this model to a branch layout that can support it.
Mercurial is nice because it can support developers well, by allowing them to maintain their own development "branches" without affecting a continuous build or other downstream processes (QA, installers, etc).
[Rel]
^
[RC]
^
[QA]----[QA]------[QA]
^ ^ ^
[Dev]---------------------------------------------------------
^ ^ ^
[Jen] [Paul] [Ken]
this is a possible scheme, where developers merge to Dev, and somebody merges regularly to the [QA] branch, and when that it baked nice goes to [RC] etc.
Every release stays isolated from other activity.
Good Luck!
I'm working in a team of 3 developers and we have recently switched from CVS to Mercurial. We are using Mercurial by having local repositories on each of our workstations and pulling/pushing to a development server. I'm not sure this is the best workflow, as it is easy to forget to Push after a Commit, and 3 way merge conflicts can cause a real headache. Is there a better workflow we could use, as I think the complexity of distributed VC is outweighing the benefits at the moment.
Thanks
If you are running into a lot of 3 way merges it might be because you have too much overlap in what you and your team members are working on. Mercurial is pretty good at handling merges itself, so long as you all aren't editing the exact same lines of a file. If possible, you could divide up the work more clearly and avoid some of the headaches of large merges. Also note that this would still be a problem with CVS since it's arguably worse at merging than mercurial.
You also don't need to push after every commit. Your workflow could look something like this:
Commit part of some feature.
Commit some more of some feature.
Commit last part of feature.
Commit bug fixes for stupid mistakes.
Push full feature to repo.
To an extent, this looks like Going Dark, but that can be alleviated by making sure that the features in the above example are smallish in scope.
Forget all you know about CVS. Mercurial is nothing like it even if some commands feel somewhat similar.
Read http://hginit.com/. Follow the examples.
Forget all you know about CVS.
I mean it. This is the hardest part. Learn to trust your tool.
It sounds like you're all making your changes to the same branch. This has the unsatisfying side-effect that you're merging each others' changes on almost every single commit, which would be fine except that manually intervening for conflicts isn't something you want to do every time you push.
Here's the workflow I would suggest. The idea is to use branching more heavily, so you need to merge to the master branch less often.
Have every developer develop every feature in a separate branch. This way:
you avoid constantly merging changes from other people, and
you are free of the pressure to push incomplete work before the next guy, "makes it hard to merge."
When a feature is "done" and if the changes would appear to apply cleanly (a judgement call), merge the feature branch directly into the master branch and delete the feature branch.
If a feature falls way behind the master branch (many features merged), or if the merge otherwise appears difficult:
merge master into the feature branch.
Find and fix any bugs in contented isolation from other developers.
Assuming the feature is ready to go, merge it into master (notice: now the merge in this direction will be clean by definition). If not, you can just continue developing.
We are using Mercurial by having local repositories on each of our workstations and pulling/pushing to a development server.
That sounds fine to me. My team is about double the size and it works great.
I'm not sure this is the best workflow, as it is easy to forget to Push after a Commit,
You don't have to push after every commit; you push when you want to push. That's the big idea about DVCS: that Commit and Push are distinct!
and 3 way merge conflicts can cause a real headache.
Are you working on the same lines of code a lot? On my team of 5-6 programmers, pushing/pulling a few times a day, and committing up to a couple dozen times a day, I can't remember the last time I've had to manually resolve merge conflicts. Certainly not in the past month or two.
Is there a better workflow we could use, as I think the complexity of distributed VC is outweighing the benefits at the moment.
Perhaps you should describe your workflow in more detail, because the only complexity over centralized version control that I encounter on a typical workday is maybe one command, and the benefits are huge. Doing "hg blame" just once saves me more time over the centralized version than all the "hg push"es I've had to type all year!
For what it's worth, we're a similar size team working with Mercurial for the first time and we started with the same problem.
We persisted and things are now significantly better. I think most of the problems occurred when the codebase was tiny and people were all trying to work on the same thing. Now that it's a little more established people aren't treading on each others' toes quite so much and the Paris much reduced.
Hope you get it sorted!
Subversion shop considering switching to Mercurial, trying to figure out in advance what all the complaints from developers are going to be. There's one fairly common use case here that I can't see how to handle.
I'm working on some largish feature, and I have a significant part of the code -- or possibly several significant parts of the code -- in pieces all over the garage floor, totally unsuitable for checkin, maybe not even compiling.
An urgent bugfix request comes in. The fix is nice and local and doesn't touch any of the code I've been working on.
I make the fix in my working copy.
Now what?
I've looked at "Mercurial cherry picking changes for commit" and "best practices in mercurial: branch vs. clone, and partial merges?" and all the suggestions seem to be extensions of varying complexity, from Record and Shelve to Queues.
The fact that there apparently isn't any core functionality for this makes me suspect that in some sense this working style is Doing It Wrong. What would a Mercurial-like solution to this use case look like?
Edited to add: git, by contrast, seems designed for this workflow: git add the bugfix files, don't git add anything else (or git reset HEAD anything you might have already added), git commit.
Here's how I would handle the case:
have a dev branch
have feature branches
have a personal branch
have a stable branch.
In your scenario, I would be committing frequently to my branch off the feature branch.
When the request came in, I would hg up -r XYZ where XYZ is the rev number that they are running, then branch a new feature branch off of that(or up branchname, whatever).
Perform work, then merge into the stable branch after the work is tested.
Switch back to my work and merge up from the top feature branch commit node, thus integrating the two streams of effort.
Lots of useful functionality for Mercurial is provided in the form of extensions -- don't be afraid to use them.
As for your question, record provides what you call partial commits (it allows you to select which hunks of changes you want to commit). On the other hand, shelve allows to temporarily make your working copy clean, while keeping the changes locally. Once you commit the bug fix, you can unshelve the changes and continue working.
The canonical way to go around this (i.e. using only core) would probably be to make a clone (note that local clones are cheap as hardlinks are created instead of copies).
You would clone the repository (i.e. create a bug-fix branch in SVN terms) and do the fix from there.
Alternatively if it really is a quick fix you can use the -I option on commit to explicitly check-in individual files.
Like any DVCS, branching is your friend. Branching a repository multiple ways is the bread and butter of these system. Here's a git model you might consider adopting that works quite well with Mercurial, also.
In addition to what Santa said about branching being your friend...
Small-granularity commits are your friend. Rather than making lots of code changes in a single commit, make each logically self-contained code change in its own commit. Then it will be a lot easier to cherry-pick changes to merge between branches.
Don't use Mercurial without using the Mq Extension (it comes pre-packaged in the default installation). In addition to solving your specific problem, it solves a lot of other general problems and really should be the default way that you work (especially if you're using an IDE that doesn't integrate directly with Hg, making switching branches on the fly a difficult way to work).
I'd like to evaluate Mercurial for my working projects. But most of my projects very heavily rely on the presence of svn:externals-like support. I've searched over StackOverflow and googled for corresponding support in Mercurial. All I found is subrepo feature added in Mercurial 1.3, but the page for this feature said:
subrepos are an experimental feature for Mercurial 1.3. So don't do this on mission critical repositories!
I don't want to use something unstable.
Can anybody shed some light on the real status of this feature, and the plans of polishing/finishing it and when it will be called "stable" and ready for mission critical repositories?
The word in the #mercurial IRC channel is that subrepos will continue to work as they do, and support will grow. For example currently the 'hg status' command isn't subrepo aware -- it works, it just doesn't recurse, but that in the future it will be. However, the current behaviors, fileformats (.hgsub and .hgsubstate) will only be changed in backward compatible ways.
So, go ahead and count on it now, and look forward to it getting better.
P.S. As of mercurial 1.4.2 the subrepos can now be subversion repos, so you can use a mercurial parent and a svn kid.
I've had good luck with the feature in my (light) usage of it so far. It's come in handy in two places:
Backing up a tree of unrelated repositories with a single hg pull command.
Tying a project together with specific versions of its dependencies, so that a single hg clone gets buildable source code. This is closer to the typical svn:externals usage.
Here are a couple of the limitations I've seen with it so far:
In case #1 above, you have to commit all subrepos at once. This is only occasionally annoying, as Mercurial (like any DVCS) encourages frequent commits—so most repos aren't left sitting around in an incomplete state to begin with.
Only the most basic Mercurial commands are subrepo-aware: clone, push / pull, update / commit, and perhaps a couple of others.
Extension authors are going to need time to test their extensions against repositories with subrepos.
When the Mercurial team describes the feature as "experimental," they don't mean that it's suddenly going to decide to erase all your data. They just mean that they haven't coded around all the edge cases like name conflicts (e.g., one developer adds a subrepo called README, while another developer adds a text file called README).