I've got a strange issue that's started since I restored everything on the server after a major catastrophe.
I have two repositories, one is just called "default", and the other is the live website.
When I make changes locally on my dev machine, I commit and push those changes to the default repository. I then SSH onto the server, cd to the live website repository and pull the changes from the default repo, onto the live repo.
The issue is, that when I push the changesets, they appear to go out properly, with no errors, and the hg serve window gives the usual GET list of commands running through it, but when I try to pull from the default repository, it says that no changes are found, and if I run hg summary on the default repository, the changesets that I thought had been pushed to it are not there.
Any idea what could be wrong?
I've tried deleting the default repository and re-cloning from live already, it made no difference.
Here's the contents of my .hgrc file for the default repo.
[paths]
default = /var/www/example.com
Mercurial is a distributed system, so from what I understand, you have 3 repos that you call local, default and live.
Your usual process seems legit, but since the restore, could there be a mix up of the repo you are initially pushing to? It may not be the default you think it is... Or the mix up is on the repo you are pulling from?
Try using a UI client to help you debug your issue.
Related
We have a SOLUTION folder (Mercurial repository) in whitch we have a PROJECT folder, that is also a Mercurial repository.
So two repositories: one - the root(solution) folder and other - a subfolder of the root folder(the project) (yes strange but it is like this)...
Everything worked, but one day someone somehow included the SOLUTION branch into the PROJECT repository... So all the history from the Solution branch was included in parralel with the Project branch into the PROJECT repository....
Now is a little mess in the PROJECT repository... There is need to clean that repository...
Locally it worked by applying the hg strip rev XXS (where XXS was the revision number of the very first node from the freshly added Solution branch in the Project repository).
But it seems there is no strip equivalent on the server?!
Every time we'll pull incoming changes in the Project repository, the "Solution" branch will be re-imported....
Is there a way to manage it on the server side?
Of course the same solution would also work on the server. Thus you need login access to the server itself to execute the same local history operation on it. But for the default setup (publishing server) a push will never remove changesets which are present on a remote location; when you history edit your local repository, the changes will not all propagate: only additions to the graph will, but no deletions.
If such changes to the remote server are expected to be pushed, and this is a regular thing, you might want to look into use of phases and how to setup a non-publishing server, e.g. a server with mutable history: Phases#Publishing_Repository.
Mind that such a workflow also means that every single one of the people with push privilige has to change their default phase to 'draft' instead of 'public' - at least for that project.
kill the server repo. start a fresh one, then from local:
hg push -rev XXR
where XXR is the last rev you want to keep.
We use Mercurial and have set up a repo server to which all local/developer changes are pushed to/pulled from. I came back from vacation to find that one of our repos has been replaced. Apparently a developer was having issues pushing commits to it and figured the only solution was to blow away the repo on our server and push a new one from his machine under a new name. Not sure how, but in doing this we lost all the change history of the project before it was blown away.
I still have the full repo history on my local machine up to that point and would like to merge the new repo with the old repo and have the full change history retained. I'm hesitant to do a pull/update to my machine in case I lose the history.
I also want to update the name of the repo directory on the server because now some of our tools have broken paths to the repo and would prefer reverting back to the original directory name insted of updating all our tools' references.
I think I can use the hg rename to do what I want regarding the rename, but how do I merge the two repos into one?
I found a way to merge by following (somewhat) the instructions here: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/MergingUnrelatedRepositories
First I made a copy of my local repo in case things went sideways
I cloned the repo on the server to the name I wanted it to be and which matched my local repo
I did a pull on the server repo to my local one and instead of doing an update, did a merge
Resolved merge diffs and committed locally
Pushed changes to new server repo, confirmed full change history was in place
Removed old server repo
I'm using TortoiseHg with the hg-git Mercurial plugin to interact with Github without using Git at all, only Hg. On Github, I forked the pandas repo. I successfully cloned my fork to my computer. I want to add the original pandas repo as a URL in Hg, so I can pull changes from that repo and integrate them with whatever changes I make myself. I added the original pandas repo in the URLs in TortoiseHg under the name "upstream".
However, if I try to pull from that original upstream repo, Hg hangs for a long time and then eventually issues a "504 - Gateway timeout" error. If I directly clone the pandas repo (instead of cloning my fork of it), I can pull from it fine.
The strange thing is that this doesn't seem to happen with all repos. I did the same process (fork, clone the fork, then try to pull from the original) with the matplotlib repo, and it seems to pull from the original repo just fine.
Even stranger, if I clone the original repo, and then add my fork as an extra URL, I can pull from both. So somehow the URL as set during the original clone is okay, but setting the same URL manually as a source doesn't work.
This seems to indicate that the problem is with the pandas repo specifically. Is this possible? Is there some setting on Github that could be affecting my ability to pull from that repo? What can I do to make it work?
I repeated the process with hg-git via the command line and couldn't replicate the problem. So there are a few possibilities:
There's either an issue with (your) TortoiseHG (config).
You've made a typo of some type when entering the URL into TortoiseHG.
There's a weird corner case in hg-git.
Something is causing trouble in your hgrc -- either your global one (hidden in your home directory) or your repository specific one (found in .hg/hgrc).
If you provide your hgrc files as a Github Gist (anonymizing them as need be), that might provide some insight.
In the meantime, one solution is to do the git stuff by hand and then force an update:
cd path/to/hg/repo
git fetch https://github.com/pydata/pandas.git # equal to hg pull,
hg gimport # pulls the changesets from the hidden git repo into the mercurial repo
If this works, then there's probably something wrong with the saved URL.
You still have to worry about merging and rebasing and whatnot, but you can do that within Mercurial. The hidden git repo will be automatically when you do a push to a git remote, or you can force it to update via hg gexport.
I use an ant file to build a java project in mercurial through hudson.
The mailnine has a hudson job running just fine.
Recently a new branch was created and pushed to the server by commnd line:
hg branch newbranch
hg commit
hg push -f
The mainine does not contain these changes and still builds fine.
I have set up a new job with the same setting as mainline (in fact copied mainline job in hudson), and specified the newbranch.
However, the newbranch job builds code identical to mainline.
If I commandline clone the repository and switch to the newbranch everything looks as expected. This seems to be a hudson configuration glitch unless my merqurial skills are off course.
I have also tried to set up the job from sratch with settings identical to mainline with the addition of the newbranch specification without any luck.
What am I missing?
Anyone any ideas?
Try putting the branch in the URL to clone like:
http://server/path/to/repo#newbranch
or
ssh://user#server//path/to/repo#newbranch
You can see the full syntax for branch-in-repo-url using hg help urls
URL Paths
Valid URLs are of the form:
local/filesystem/path[#revision]
file://local/filesystem/path[#revision]
http://[user[:pass]#]host[:port]/[path][#revision]
https://[user[:pass]#]host[:port]/[path][#revision]
ssh://[user[:pass]#]host[:port]/[path][#revision]
Paths in the local filesystem can either point to Mercurial repositories
or to bundle files (as created by 'hg bundle' or 'hg incoming --bundle').
An optional identifier after # indicates a particular branch, tag, or
changeset to use from the remote repository. See also 'hg help revisions'.
One issue with cloning a job is that the 'cloned' job is created as soon as you hit the clone button. While you are still configuring the cloned job, it may hit a build trigger like an SCM polling event that causes it to kick off before you have fully configured it.
I believe this was fixed in later versions of Hudson, but cannot find the changelog entry for job cloning. The same issue existed for cloning a slave configuration, and the problem was fixed in Hudson 1.319.
It's my first time using a DVCS and also as a lone developer, the first time that I've actually used branches, so maybe I'm missing something here.
I have a remote repository from which I pulled the files and started working. Changes were pushed to the remote repository and of course this simple scenario works fine.
Now that my web application has some stable features, I'd like to start deploying it and so I cloned the remote repository to a new branches/stable directory outside of my working directory for the default branch and used:
hg branch stable
to create a new named branch. I created a bunch of deployment scripts that are needed only by the stable branch and I committed them as needed. Again this worked fine.
Now when I went back to my initial working directory to work on some new features, I found out that Mercurial insists on only ONE head being in the remote repository. In other words, I'd have to merge the two branches (default and stable), adding in the unneeded deployment scripts to my default branch in order to push to the main repository. This could get worse, if I had to make a change to a file in my stable branch in order to deploy.
How do I keep my named branches separate in Mercurial? Do I have to create two separate remote repositories to do so? In which case the named branches lose their value. Am I missing something here?
Use hg push -f to force the creation of a new remote head.
The reason push won't do it by default is that it's trying to remind you to pull and merge in case you forgot. What you don't want to happen is:
You and I check out revision 100 of named branch "X".
You commit locally and push.
I commit locally and push.
Now branch X looks like this in the remote repo:
--(100)--(101)
\
\---------(102)
Which head should a new developer grab if they're checking out the branch? Who knows.
After re reading the section on named branchy development in the Mercurial book, I've concluded that for me personally, the best practice is to have separate shared repositories, one for each branch. I was on the free account at bitbucket.org, so I was trying to force myself to use only one shared repository, which created the problem.
I've bit the bullet and got myself a paid account so that I can keep a separate shared repository for my stable releases.
You wrote:
I found out that Mercurial insists on only ONE head being in the remote repository.
Why do you think this is the case?
From the help for hg push:
By default, push will refuse to run if it detects the result would
increase the number of remote heads. This generally indicates the
the client has forgotten to pull and merge before pushing.
If you know that you are intentionally creating a new head in the remote repository, and this is desirable, use the -f flag.
I've come from git expecting the same thing. Just pushing the top looks like it might be one approach.
hg push -r tip