Such as I revert to an old revision and I just want to work from this revision. Now I have two heads. How to deal with this situation? Do I need to merge this two heads or just ignore it?
You have multiple options. It is ok to just close the unused head, and leave it as is, Mercurial should not bother you with this anymore.
What I prefer to use is a merge while ignoring one head. You can do this quite easily in TortoiseHg by merging your head to the correct branch and open the option to discard the other revision.
Otherwise, you can follow the steps here:
Mercurial: Any way to "merge and discard changes"?
Related
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).
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.
This question already has answers here:
Mercurial: Merging one file between branches in one repo
(5 answers)
Closed 2 years ago.
Reading up on Mercurial, it seems to always branch and merge the complete repositories.
Is it possible to just merge some files from one branch to another? (For example I may only wish to merge in the files that fix a given bug.)
Likewise can I cherry pick some change sets, but still have a correct merge record, so if a complete merge is done later it is correct?
I am coming from a perforce “mindset” so may be thinking about this the wrong way.
Yes, Mercurial always branches and merges the whole tree. You don't have the "flexibility" that something like perforce gives you to select individual files for a merge. This is a good thing (trust me). Changesets are atomic (you can't split them) and immutable (you can't change them). Hence this needs a little bit of a mindset change.
Changesets should be targetted at one task, and one task only. If you're fixing a bug, nothing else goes in the changeset apart from the bug fix. You've then got a changeset which documents that bug fix, and you haven't got the problem of wanting to split it. It wouldn't make sense to want to. Half a bug fix is often worse than no bug fix.
When it comes to merging that there's a couple of options:
One school of thought says you should go back to where the bug was introduced. Fix it. Commit (making a small anonymous branch), and merge that forward onto whatever head you want it on (dev, stable, release, whatever). This isn't always practical though.
Another method is fixing the bug in the release branch, and then merging to the development branch. This normally works well.
Alternatively you could fix it at the head of your development branch, but then if you merge it onto your release branch you'll bring over all your development changes. This is where graft (new in 2.0) and the older transplant extension come into play. They allow you to "cherry-pick" a single or range of changesets from another branch and place them on another branch.
Reading up on Mercurial, it seems to always branch and merge the
complete repositories.
Yes
Is it possible to just merge some files from one branch to another? (For example I may only wish to merge in the files that fix a given bug.)
Just touch only "some files" in needed changeset and merge branch with this changeset in head with another branch or transplant in any time
Likewise can I cherry pick some change sets, but still have a correct merge record, so if I complete merge is done later it is correct?
Yes, you can transplant| any changesets to another branch, applied state will be remembered and changes will not be duplicated on final merge
Compare to standard push/pull, what is the advantages of using the rebase command in Mercurial?
This post has a nice explanation:
The answer lies in rebasing. Rebasing is a technique made popular by git where you rewrite your not-yet-pushed patches so that they apply against the current remote tip, rather than against the tip of the repository you happened to last pull. The benefit is that your merge history shows useful merges—merges between major branches—rather than simply every single merge you did with the upstream repository.
Normal pull, merge, push sequence will create a number of commits that are not very useful in terms of the history of your repository. Rebasing helps to eliminate these.
If you do a pull-merge-push sequence and get the "merge" wrong you can always "backout" the "merge commit". Thus, you have an easy way of "undo-ing a push". I don't know if there is an equivalent easy way when using rebase.
...so I've gotten used to the simple stuff with Mercurial (add, commit, diff) and found out about the .hgignore file (yay!) and have gotten the hang of creating and switching between branches (branch, update -C).
I have two major questions though:
If I'm in branch "Branch1" and I want to pull in some but not all of the changes from branch "Branch2", how would I do that? Particularly if all the changes are in one subdirectory. (I guess I could just clone the whole repository, then use a directory-merge tool like Beyond Compare to pick&choose my edits. Seems like there ought to be a way to just isolate the changes in one file or one directory, though.)
Switching between branches with update -C seems so easy, I'm wondering why I would bother using clone. I can only think of a few reasons (see below) -- are there some other reasons I'm missing?
a. if I need to act on two versions/branches at once (e.g. do a performance-metric diff)
b. for a backup (clone the repository to a network drive in a physically different location)
c. to do the pick&choose merge like I've mentioned above.
I use clone for:
Short-lived local branches
Cloning to different development machines and servers
The former use is pretty rare for me - mainly when I'm trying an idea I might want to totally abandon. If I want to merge, I'll want to merge ALL the changes. This sort of branching is mainly for tracking different developers' branches so they don't disturb each other. Just to clarify this last point:
I keep working on my changes and pull my fellow devs changes and they pull mine.
When it's convenient for me I'll merge ALL of the changes from one (or all) of these branches into mine.
For feature branches, or longer lived branches, I use named branches which are more comfortably shared between repositories without merging. It also "feels" better when you want to selectively merge.
Basically I look at it this way:
Named branches are for developing different branches or versions of the app
Clones are for managing different contributions to the same version of the app.
That's my take, though really it's a matter of policy.
For question 1, you need to be a little clearer about what you mean by "changes". Which of these do you mean:
"I want to pull some, but not all, of the changesets in a different branch into this one."
"I want to pull the latest version of some, but not all, of the files in a different branch into this one."
If you mean item 1, you should look into the Transplant extension, specifically the idea of cherrypicking a couple of changesets.
If you mean item 2, you would do the following:
Update to the branch you want to pull the changes into.
Use hg revert -r <branch you want to merge> --include <files to update> to change the contents of those files to the way they are on the other branch.
Use hg commit to commit those changes to the branch as a new changeset.
As for question 2, I never use repository clones for branching myself, so I don't know. I use named branches or anonymous branches (sometimes with bookmarks).
I have another option for you to look into: mercurial queues.
The idea is, to have a stack of patches (no commits, "real" patches) ontop of your current working directory. Then, you can add or remove the applied patches, add one, remove it, add another other one, etc. One single patch or a subset of them ends up to be a new "feature" as you probably want to do with branches. After that, you can apply the patch as usual (since it is a change). Branches are probably more useful if you work with somebody else... ?