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.
Related
I cloned a project to my local directory and made a lot of changes. My current goal is to push my changed code to a new branch in the remote repository. And eventually this new branch will be merged back to default.
My problem is, because of some stupid effort in the past a few weeks to try to recover some missing files, I end up with a few branch names that I don't want being shown in public.
Here's what I have:
$hg branches
dev-v02 197:xxxxx
dev2 194:xxxxx
dev 183:xxxxx
qa 189:xxxxx
$hg branch
dev-v02
My question is, if I push my current branch dev-v02 to the remote repository by "hg push --new-branch", and this branch later get merged back to default, will the unwanted branches show up in history of default? And if so, is there a safe way to purge them?
I do NOT want to discard my changes. I just don't want the unwanted branches showing up in "hg branches" or "hg his" commands by whoever later clones the project from the remote repository. I searched online and found "hg strip" but I couldn't tell from the article if it would also remove the changes I've made. Thanks.
Edit: I just cloned my local repository by "hg clone -r 197 original-dir dest-dir" as suggested by both kevin and chessbot and now hg branches shows:
dev-02 192:xxxxx
qa 187:xxxxx (inactive)
I guess "qa" remains because I had pushed it to the remote as a QA branch and closed it later, and I just have to live with that. I will push from this new directory from now on. Thanks guys for your help.
Try hg push --new-branch -b dev-v02 to specify that you're pushing only that branch.
(See: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/repo/hg/help/push)
Another thing you could do: Clone the repository locally on your machine, strip out the branches you don't want, and then push that clone to the server. Then you retain your history locally without pushing it to everyone else.
It depends.
Branches are permanently associated with a commit. The branch is part of the commit, and contributes to the hash. Changing the branch of a commit in the past would alter all commit hashes from that point forward. This is quite different from Git, where a branch is little more than an ephemeral pointer to a HEAD. Such pointers are implemented in Mercurial as bookmarks.
If the unwanted branches appear on commits which are (ancestors of) commits you want to publish, there is very little you can do, short of recreating the history with all-new hashes. This could (for instance) be done with hg export and hg import, along with local cloning and (probably) a certain amount of shell scripting. More efficiently, you could use the convert extension to automate the process. Since this changes commit hashes, it will likely cause serious problems if any of the commits have already been distributed publicly.
If you have no interest in sharing the offending commits, you can simply not publish them. This can be done with selective pushing. However, since you'll always have to manually exclude those commits every time you push, it's probably safer to clone and strip (or clone selectively with the -r flag). You can then push from your partial clone with impunity. Assuming you have a sufficiently recent version of Mercurial, you can also force the commits into the secret phase, so that they will not be pushed:
hg phase -fs revisions
You don't want to use hg strip, because it permanently removes the commits from the history (see Editing History in the Mercurial wiki)
If I were you, I would close the branches instead:
hg up -C badbranch
hg commit --close-branch -m 'close badbranch, this approach never worked'
hg up -C default
(source: Pruning branches in the Mercurial wiki)
After closing a branch, hg branches doesn't show it anymore.
If you do want to see closed branches, use the -c parameter:
hg branches -c
Disadvantage:
hg his still shows closed branches.
You could use the -b parameter though, to show only the default branch:
hg his -b default
We have a code review repository where people hg push -f all sorts of stuff. After reviews are complete, we pull from the project's central repository, rebase, and push. I recently upgraded to mercurial 2.1 and get this message:
abort: can't rebase immutable changeset 43ab8134e7af
(see hg help phases for details)
when I try to hg pull --rebase from the central repository. How do I fix it?
In the review repository's .hg/hgrc file, add these lines:
[phases]
publish = False
The problem is due to a new feature in mercurial 2.1 called phases. It's great. Here is a nice introduction to its use.
To make the changesets in question mutable right now, use hg phase -f -d REV to force REV to be mutable again. Once the hgrc file has been changed, you shouldn't have to do that any more.
As a side note, hg push -f is lame. Make an alias hg review that pushes with -f to that repository.
I don't think disabling phase support on the server is the correct solution, but your problem sounds weird.
Pull --rebase should rebase your local changes, on top of the remote changes, which should be allowed, even if phases are supported by the client, as long as these changes have not been seen by anyone else, eg. they haven't been pushed out anywhere.
Is it possible that you have already pushed your your own changes, to somewhere else (which set them to public phase), and after that tried pulling from the testing repo? Because then, this is the correct behaviour that you are seeing.
Most of the time it is a bad idea to mess with phases manually (with hg phase -f), because it can easily lead to a history rewrite, which can lead to duplicated changesets, or various errors when other people try to pull/push. If a changeset became marked as public (as in your case), it probably happened for a good reason.
I've encountered such behaviour with collapsed rebase. Phasing out back to draft hadn't helped me. So I've just pulled up (hg pull -u) to sync with remote repo, then just grafted the problem commit (hg graft <problem_commit>) and then amended this very new commit.
I am trying to do something very simple: create a new branch. But I messed up. Where did I make the mistake, and how do I fix it?
I am the only user of Mercurial. I had revision 54 committed and pushed to remote repository. I wanted to create a branch based on revision 53, so I updated my local copy to revision 53, made changes, and committed (ignoring the warning about "it's not the head"). Then when I am trying to push to remote repository, it says
abort: push creates new remote head
Maybe I needed to tell Mercurial that I want to create a new branch? If so, how and at what point?
Thanks!
You tell Mercurial that it can go ahead with
$ hg push --force
You need to force it since multiple (unnamed) heads are normally discouraged. The problem with them is that people that clone the repository wont know which one to use. But since you're the only user you can just go ahead and push.
The alternative is to use a named branch (with hg branch) and then you'll use
$ hg push --new-branch
to allow the creation of a new branch on the remote. Named branches have the advantage that they make it easy to distinguish the two branches. They have the disadvantage that they are permanent. Permanent means that you cannot remove the branch name from the changesets on the branch — the name is literally baked directly into the changeset.
Bookmarks provide a way to have non-permanent branch names, see hg help bookmarks.
Another reason for this error: probably there are some UNMERGED changes form the central repo in your default branch.
hg up default
hg merge
hg ci -m "Merge"
hg pus
I did this. Using TortoiseHg ... this is how I fixed it:
In settings, I enabled the Strip extension then right clicked the branch i did not want, Modified History - strip. If you have pushed, then it needs to be stripped from all other repositories, including workmates who have pulled your unwanted branch.
An alternative is to merge the unwanted branch into your main branch, but do not take any of the changes from that branch - I am unsure of how that mechanism works.
Many times it happens that I have few commits on my local Hg repository which I don't want to push and sometimes I want to remove the local branch altogether. But I cannot rollback more than one commit which leaves me no choice than creating a new clone and download the whole repository again. This feels stupid, since if I could just delete my local branch which has not affected the remote repository in anyway, then I wouldn't have to create and setup a new clone. So, is it how it is in Mercurial or is there some way to discard a local branch?
Thanks!
If you enable the mq extension (bundled with Mercurial), you can use hg strip. Be careful, though, as this will modify the history of your repository. The safe method is to clone your repository up to the revision preceding the creation of the branch you want to discard, then to pull the remaining changesets that you want to keep.
I know its too late but it may be useful for any one:
If your branch is not pushed yet.
First rollback changes hg rollback only if you have done commit but
not yet pushed
Second run hg update --clean
Third run hg branch any-existing-branch
Fourth run hg pull -u
If you find yourself doing this often perhaps you should be using bookmarks instead of named branches. http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/
How can I undo the creation of a branch in Mercurial? For example, if I issue the command
hg branch newbranch
How can I delete this branch if I decide I entered the wrong name? I'm guessing this must be pretty simple to do, but I have yet to figure it out. Thanks!
If you haven't committed yet, you can simply do a clean reset as per the manual (http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hg.1.html#commands):
hg branch -C
This will reset the working directory's branch name to the parent of the branch that you just created.
if you haven't committed anything to it, it wasn't really created. so just issue another hg branch newname.
If its already commited:
hg clone -b branch1 [-b branch2 [-b ..]] oldrepo newrepo, i.e. every branch except newbranch, will result in new repo without the newbranch.
If mq extension is enabled then hg strip
Look into editing history before making permanent changes in repository.
Assuming you have not pushed to a remote repository, enable the mq extension and strip the branch off.