I'm trying to make a crontab that pulls and makes a repository every day for me, but whenever i do that and the repository merges the crontab gets stuck.
Is there a way to pull without prompting a merge and without deleting my code?
Is there a way to pull without prompting a merge
Just hg pull by itself does not merge, nor does it ask the user for anything. The local repository will be added to, but the local working directory will not be touched. Nothing will be deleted.
If your .hgrc file is using a [defaults] section, you might be silently adding the -u/--update option without realizing it. That option tries to automatically do an update. If that's the case, then don't use defaults sections.
If this doesn't answer your question, then show us exactly what commands your cron entry is running, what the output is, where it "gets stuck" (is SSH asking for authentication credentials?), and which part you're trying to avoid.
The literal answer to how do you pull without merging is you hg fetch which gets the new remote changesets but doesn't update any files in your working directory. It sounds like what you're really asking though is "how do I update to tip and throw away any local changes?". If that's what you're going for you'd do:
hg fetch # gets new changesets
hg update --clean # update to latest files THROWING AWAY LOCAL CHANGES
Is that what you're going for?
Related
Pretty much the title. I've looked at a lot of similar questions asked here, and I can't seem to find something that applies.
Started by syncing with HEAD. Created a few new files. Filled in those files, they were being tracked at this point. I then not only deleted the files, but also removed them from being tracked (because of stupid UI). According to my understanding, those files are gone for good, but I thought I'd check with people who are smarter than me: Is it possible to retrieve them?
Mercurial does not store uncommitted changes, so if you did not commit the files then they are lost.
If you did commit them, then hg update -C will restore them (and all other files --- make sure there are no other changes you haven't committed and want to keep) to the latest commit for your working dir.
Every time I pull from a repository I get not only the changesets but also all the bookmarks from that repository. In some situations this is quite annoying. Is there a way to pull without getting bookmarks?
(I'm actually using TortoiseHG, but information about plain Mercurial command line is useful and appreciated as well.)
(Background: In TortoiseHG having many bookmarks gets cluttered quickly. That doesn't matter in the remote repository where the bookmarks should remain for future reference. But locally I don't need or want them. So after each pull from the remote repository I have to delete each bookmark individually. This gets old fast...)
I don't think that push copies bookmarks, so why not go to the remote repository and from there push into yours?
Alternatively, .hg/bookmarks is just a text file, what happens if you copy it, pull, and then restore the original?
Is there a way to pull without getting bookmarks?
No. You get all remote bookmarks from remote repository every time
In TortoiseHG having many bookmarks gets cluttered quickly
How?! Not active "external" bookmark will remain invisible in the past history quickly
but... you can rename your local, important bookmarks (give some unique prefix) and after it deleting remote bookmarks after each pull can be a lot easier: grep -v PREFIX for content of .hg/bookmarks file
I suspect this might be really obvious but I can't find a straightforward solution in the documentation or forums:
I have written some code that is held in a Mercurial repository on BitBucket.
I use this code to build Linux virtual servers. When I build a server, I clone the repo onto the server, run my build script, and then delete the clone. The result is a configured server with several files from my repo located in various folders on the server.
Now, I'm looking for a mechanism where I can roll out bug fixes and improvements to my users' servers after I have handed them over. At that time, I won't have SSH access to the servers and I cannot expect my end users to do anything more complicated than kick off a cron job or launch a script.
To achieve this, I'm thinking of setting up a BitBucket account for my users with read-only access to my repo.
I have no problem writing a script to clone my repo, via this read-only account, and apply the updates, but I don't want to include all my files. In particular, I want to exclude my build script as it is commercially sensitive. I know I could remove it from my repo, but then my build wouldn't work.
Reading around, it seems I may need to create a branch or a fork of my repo (which?). Or maybe a sub-repo? Then, I could remove the sensitive files from that branch/fork/sub-repo and allow my users to clone it via a script.
That's OK, but I need a way to update the branched/forked/sub repo as I make changes to the main one. Can this be automatic? In other words, can it be set up to always reflect the updates made in the main repo? Excluding the sensitive files of course.
I'm not sure I'd want updates to be automatic though, so I'd also like to know how to transfer updates from the main to the branch/fork/sub manually. A merge? If I do a merge, how do I make sure my sensitive files don't get copied across?
To sum up, I have a main repo which contains some sensitive files and I need a way to roll out updates of all but those sensitive files to my read-only users.
Sorry if this is hugely obvious. I'm sure it's a case of not seeing the wood for the trees and being overwhelmed by the possibilities. Thanks.
I don't think that you need to solve this in Mercurial at all.
What you actually need is Continuous Integration / a build server.
The simplest solution goes like this:
Set up a build server with something like TeamCity or Jenkins, that's always online and monitors changes in your Bitbucket repository.
You can set it up so that when there's a change in your repository, the build server runs your build script and copies the output to some FTP server, or download site, or whatever.
Now you have a single location that always contains the most recent code changes, but without the sensitive files like the build script.
Then, you can set up a script or cron job that your end users can run to get the newest version of the code from that central location.
You are ok with two branches, one for the users clone (main) and other for your main development (dev), the tricky part is merging the new changes from dev to main.
You can solve this by excluding files in the merge process. Excluding a file while merging in Mercurial
By setting the [merge-patterns] section in your .hgrc you can sepcify what files are not affected by the merge.
[merge-patterns]
build.sh = internal:local
For more info read hg help merge-tools.
"internal:local"
Uses the local version of files as the merged version.
Entire Mercurial trees always get moved around together, so you can't clone or pull just part of a repository (along the file tree axis). You could keep a branch that has only part of the files, and then keep another branch that has everything, making it easy to merge the the partial (in terms of files) branch into the other branch (but merging the other way wouldn't be particularly easy).
I'm thinking maybe subrepositories work for your particular use case.
I have few questions and i would appreciate your help:
Say, i need specific folders from another repo merged into my repo/working dir. How would i do properly?
If i pull anothers repo and then merge. Afterwards, realizing this is not working, so i call 'hg update -C'. Did this cleaned my repo from the changes i pulled from another repo that i released is not what i need?
Can i do a pessimistic merge where it only adds and updates, but not deletes?
Thanks for helping learn Mercurial
Margots
I would just copy the needed files and folders from the other repo and commit them. You could technically do what you want as a merge but it's a manual, error-prone, finicky process.
If you haven't committed your merge update -C will abandon the merge. Do update -C <myVersion> to get the specific version you want.
This would be a messy process (see 1.) and I wouldn't bother. If there are problems you can always revert your file to a previous version.
I have some files I'd like to add to have them as a "backup". The thing is, I'd like to commit them only one time, and then, I'd like for Mercurial to don't track them anymore ( don't notify me if they're changed, and don't commit them on other commits ).
Basically, something like this:
hg add my_folder
hg commit -m "added first version of my_folder"
Then, after a while, the contents of that folder might change. And if I commit other files, the new version of that folder will get commited as well. This is something I'd like to avoid. Is it possible, without specifying directly which files I want to commit?
I've never seen any option in Mercurial that might allow that... but why not simply copy them elsewhere ?
I mean, what's the point of using a Version Tracking System if you don't need versioning on these items anyway ?
We ran into a similar case with binary documents ('.doc', images, etc...) and finally decided to commit them on a separate repository, dedicated to those.
I think the traditional way of doing this is to commit files named something like "file.ext.default", and just inform users that they should copy the defaults and modify the copies.
VCSs aren't backup sysytems. consider using a proper backup mechanism.
having said that you should be able to do this using hooks, there are many ways you could do this but ACLs would be an obvious one assuming a remote server