What's the best way to specifiy a revision/revset for -r options that includes your unpushed changesets, this is useful for example to clone locally or create a bookmark in a repo with only changesets that have been pushed.
This is often needed when you need to switch to working on something else in the middle of work that you are not ready to push.
There are a few revsets that can be used to get this information:
first(outgoing()) will refer to the first changeset that has not been pushed to your default push location.
first(!public()) will refer to the first changeset that has not been pushed anywhere.
You might want to combine these with the p1([set]) predicate if you want to update to the parent of those changesets to start a new anonymous branch for your new fix.
Also, before you start work on the fix, you might want to set the phase of the changesets of the unfinished work to be secret to prevent them from being accidentally pushed.
You can do this using hg phase --secret --force -r "!public()" and use hg phase --draft -r "secret()" to switch them back again (although this would change all secret changesets to draft so you'd need to be more specific if you use phases on other branches)
If you want revset(s), you have to use outgoing([path]) (or ! outgoing([path]) as changesets specification.
[path] is URL of the repository (or alias???), if not default
If i understand correctly you want the equivalent of git stash, this is implemented as an extension on mercurial.
Check out the wiki page. https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/ShelveExtension
EDIT: I have to mention, I don't use this workflow, in your case I would make a "dev" branch and commit regularly (even WIP commits), when stable you can merge to master.
Related
If I have a bunch of uncommitted changes and want to set it aside while working on something else instead, and then later (f.i. after several days) come back to it and proceed working. What would be the easiest workflow to accomplish this? (So far I have only experience with Mercurial's basic functionality). My usual method was to create a new branch using clone, but there might be better ways.
You have a handful options:
Shelve the items. This saves the changes and removes them from the working directory so the branch can continue. It doesn't create a change-set.
hg shelve --all --name "UnfinishedChanges"
hg unshelve --name "UnfinishedChanges"
Update/Edit: Newer versions of mercurial may need to use
hg shelve -n "UnfinishedChanges"
hg unshelve "UnfinishedChanges"
You can still use --name as an alternative to -n, but mercurial doesn't seem to like --name anymore. Additionally, the --all is no longer required and mercurial will in fact freak out over it.
Patch queue the items using mq. This isn't too dissimilar to shelve in some respects, but behaves differently. The end result is the same, changes are removed and can be optionally re-applied later. When pushed, the patches are logical change-sets, when popped they are saved elsewhere and are not part of change-set history.
hg qnew "UnfinishedWork"
hg qrefresh
hg qpop
hg qpush "UnfinishedWork"
Commit them locally, update to the previous change-set and continue working and make use of anonymous branches (or multiple heads). If you then want the changes, you can merge heads. If you don't want the changes, you can strip the change-set.
hg commit -m"Commiting unfinished work in-line."
hg update -r<previous revision>
hg strip -r<revision of temporary commit>
Commit them to a named branch. The workflow then becomes the same as option 3 - merge or strip when you are ready.
hg branch "NewBranch"
hg commit -m"Commiting unfinished work to temporary named branch."
hg update <previous branch name>
Personally I use option 3 or 4 as I don't mind stripping change-sets or checking-in partial code (so long as that doesn't eventually get pushed). This can be used in conjunction with the new Phase stuff to hide your local change-sets from other users if need-be.
I also use the rebase command to move change-sets around to avoid merges where a merge wouldn't add anything to the history of the code. Merges I tend to save for activity between important branches (such as release branches), or activity from a longer-lived feature branch. There is also the histedit command I use for compressing change-sets where the "chattiness" of them reduces the value.
Patch queues are also a common mechanism for doing this, but they have stack semantics. You push and pop patches, but a patch that is "underneath" another patch in the stack requires that the one on top of it be pushed also.
Warning, as with all these options, if the files have more changes since the temporary changes that you've shelved / queued / branched, there will be merge resolution required when un-shelving / pushing / merging.
Personally, I don't like any of the answers posted so far:
I don't like clone branching because I like each project to have only one directory. Working on different directories at the same time completly messes the history of recent files of my editors. I always end up changing the wrong file. So I don't do that anymore.
I use shelve for quick fixes (just to move my uncommited changes to another branch, if I realize I'm at the wrong one). You are talking about days, no way I'd shelve something for days.
I think mq is too complicated for such an ordinary sittuation
I think the best way is to simply commit your changes, than you go back to the changeset before you start these changes and work from there. There are some minor issues, let me illustrate:
Let's say you have the changeset A. Than you start your changes. At this point you want set it aside for a while. First of all, commit your work:
hg ci -m "Working on new stuff"
If you want, you can add a bookmark to make it easier to come back later. I always create bookmarks to my anonymous branches.
hg bookmark new-stuff
Go back to the changeset before these modifications
hg update A
From here, you work and generate the changeset C. Now you have 2 heads (B and C), you'll be warned when you try to push. You can push only one branch by specifying the head of that branch:
hg push -r C
Or you can change the phase of the new-stuff branch to secret. Secret changesets won't be pushed.
hg phase -r new-stuff --secret --force
To keep local uncommited changes, easiest way for me is just to save them as a patch file.
hg diff > /tmp/`hg id -i`.patch
and when you need to return to previous state:
hg up <REV_WHERE_SAVED>
hg patch --no-commit /tmp/<REV_WHERE_SAVED>.patch
You can just clone your repo multiple times. I tend to have a root clone, then multiple childs from there. Example:
MyProject.Root
MyProject.BugFix1
MyProject.BugFix2
MyProject.FeatureChange1
MyProject.FeatureChange2
The 4 childs are all cloned from the root and push/pull to/from the root. The root then push/pulls from the master repo on the network/internet somewhere. The root acts as your sort of personal staging area.
So in your case, you'd just clone up a new repo and start working. Leave your 'shelved' work alone in the other repo. It's that simple.
The only downside is disk space usage, but if that were a concern you'd not be using DVCS at all anyway ;) Oh and it does kind of pollute your Visual Studio "recent projects" list, but what the hey.
[Edit following comments] :-
To conclude then... what you're doing is completely fine and normal. I would argue it is the best possible way to work when the following are true: 1) it is short-lived 2) you don't need to collaborate with other developers 3) the changes don't need to leave your PC until commit/push time.
I'm looking for a counter-part of git commit --amend in Mercurial, i.e. a way to modify the commit which my working copy is linked to. I'm only interested in the last commit, not an arbitrary earlier commit.
The requirements for this amend-procedure are:
if possible, it should not require any extensions. It must not require non-default extensions, i.e. extensions which do not come with an official Mercurial installation.
if the commit to amend is one head of my current branch, no new head should be created. If the commit is not head, a new head may be created.
the procedure should be safe in a way that if for whatever reasons the amending fails, I want to have the same working copy and repository state restored as before the amending. With other words, if the amending itself can fail, there should be a fail-safe procedure to restore the working copy and repository state. I'm referring to "failures" which lie in the nature of the amend-procedure (like e.g. conflicts), not to file-system-related problems (like access restrictions, not being able to lock a file for writing, ...)
Update (1):
the procedure must be automatable, so it can be performed by a GUI client without any user interaction required.
Update (2):
files in the working directory must not be touched (there may be file system locks on certain modified files). This especially means, that a possible approach may at no point require a clean working directory.
With the release of Mercurial 2.2, you can use the --amend option with hg commit to update the last commit with the current working directory
From the command line reference:
The --amend flag can be used to amend the parent of the working directory with a new commit that contains the changes in the parent in addition to those currently reported by hg status, if there are any. The old commit is stored in a backup bundle in .hg/strip-backup (see hg help bundle and hg help unbundle on how to restore it).
Message, user and date are taken from the amended commit unless specified. When a message isn't specified on the command line, the editor will open with the message of the amended commit.
The great thing is that this mechanism is "safe", because it relies on the relatively new "Phases" feature to prevent updates that would change history that's already been made available outside of the local repository.
You have 3 options to edit commits in Mercurial:
hg strip --keep --rev -1 undo the last (1) commit(s), so you can do it again (see this answer for more information).
Using the MQ extension, which is shipped with Mercurial
Even if it isn't shipped with Mercurial, the Histedit extension is worth mentioning
You can also have a look on the Editing History page of the Mercurial wiki.
In short, editing history is really hard and discouraged. And if you've already pushed your changes, there's barely nothing you can do, except if you have total control of all the other clones.
I'm not really familiar with the git commit --amend command, but AFAIK, Histedit is what seems to be the closest approach, but sadly it isn't shipped with Mercurial. MQ is really complicated to use, but you can do nearly anything with it.
GUI equivalent for hg commit --amend:
This also works from TortoiseHG's GUI (I'm using v2.5):
Swich to the 'Commit' view or, in the workbench view, select the 'working directory' entry.
The 'Commit' button has an option named 'Amend current revision' (click the button's drop-down arrow to find it).
||
||
\/
Caveat emptor:
This extra option will only be enabled if the mercurial version is at least
2.2.0, and if the current revision is not public, is not a patch and has no
children. [...]
Clicking the button will call
'commit --amend' to 'amend' the revision.
More info about this on the THG dev channel
I'm tuning into what krtek has written. More specifically solution 1:
Assumptions:
you've committed one (!) changeset but have not pushed it yet
you want to modify this changeset (e.g. add, remove or change files and/or the commit message)
Solution:
use hg rollback to undo the last commit
commit again with the new changes in place
The rollback really undoes the last operation. Its way of working is quite simple: normal operations in HG will only append to files; this includes a commit. Mercurial keeps track of the file lengths of the last transaction and can therefore completely undo one step by truncating the files back to their old lengths.
Assuming that you have not yet propagated your changes, here is what you can do.
Add to your .hgrc:
[extensions]
mq =
In your repository:
hg qimport -r0:tip
hg qpop -a
Of course you need not start with revision zero or pop all patches, for the last just one pop (hg qpop) suffices (see below).
remove the last entry in the .hg/patches/series file, or the patches you do not like. Reordering is possible too.
hg qpush -a; hg qfinish -a
remove the .diff files (unapplied patches) still in .hg/patches (should be one in your case).
If you don't want to take back all of your patch, you can edit it by using hg qimport -r0:tip (or similar), then edit stuff and use hg qrefresh to merge the changes into the topmost patch on your stack. Read hg help qrefresh.
By editing .hg/patches/series, you can even remove several patches, or reorder some. If your last revision is 99, you may just use hg qimport -r98:tip; hg qpop; [edit series file]; hg qpush -a; hg qfinish -a.
Of course, this procedure is highly discouraged and risky. Make a backup of everything before you do this!
As a sidenote, I've done it zillions of times on private-only repositories.
Recent versions of Mercurial include the evolve extension which provides the hg amend command. This allows amending a commit without losing the pre-amend history in your version control.
hg amend [OPTION]... [FILE]...
aliases: refresh
combine a changeset with updates and replace it with a new one
Commits a new changeset incorporating both the changes to the given files
and all the changes from the current parent changeset into the repository.
See 'hg commit' for details about committing changes.
If you don't specify -m, the parent's message will be reused.
Behind the scenes, Mercurial first commits the update as a regular child
of the current parent. Then it creates a new commit on the parent's
parents with the updated contents. Then it changes the working copy parent
to this new combined changeset. Finally, the old changeset and its update
are hidden from 'hg log' (unless you use --hidden with log).
See https://www.mercurial-scm.org/doc/evolution/user-guide.html#example-3-amend-a-changeset-with-evolve for a complete description of the evolve extension.
Might not solve all the problems in the original question, but since this seems to be the de facto post on how mercurial can amend to previous commit, I'll add my 2 cents worth of information.
If you are like me, and only wish to modify the previous commit message (fix a typo etc) without adding any files, this will work
hg commit -X 'glob:**' --amend
Without any include or exclude patterns hg commit will by default include all files in working directory. Applying pattern -X 'glob:**' will exclude all possible files, allowing only to modify the commit message.
Functionally it is same as git commit --amend when there are no files in index/stage.
Another solution could be use the uncommit command to exclude specific file from current commit.
hg uncommit [file/directory]
This is very helpful when you want to keep current commit and deselect some files from commit (especially helpful for files/directories have been deleted).
I have a hg clone of a repository into which I have done numerous changes locally over a few months and pushed them to my clone at google code. Unfortunately as a noob I committed a whole bunch of changes on the default branch.
Now I would like to make sure my current default is EXACTLY as upstream and then I can do proper branching off default and only working on the branches..
However how do I do that cleanup though?
For reference my clone is http://code.google.com/r/mosabua-roboguice/source/browse
PS: I got my self into the same problem with git and got that cleaned up: Cleanup git master branch and move some commit to new branch?
First, there's nothing wrong with committing on the default branch. You generally don't want to create a separate named branch for every task in Mercurial, because named branches are forever. You might want to look at the bookmark feature for something closer to git branches ("hg help bookmarks"). So if the only thing wrong with your existing changesets is that they are on the default branch, then there really is nothing wrong with them. Don't worry about it.
However, if you really want to start afresh, the obvious, straightforward thing to do is reclone from upstream. You can keep your messy changesets by moving the existing repo and recloning. Then transplant the changesets from the old repo into the new one on a branch of your choosing.
If you don't want to spend the time/bandwidth for a new clone, you can use the (advanced, dangerous, not for beginners) strip command. First, you have to enable the mq extension (google it or see the manual -- I'm deliberately not explaining it here because it's dangerous). Then run
hg strip 'outgoing("http://upstream/path/to/repo")'
Note that I'm using the revsets feature added in Mercurial 1.7 here. If you're using an older version, there's no easy way to do this.
The best way to do this is with two clones. When working with a remote repo I don't control I always keep a local clone called 'virgin' to which I make no changes. For example:
hg clone -U https://code.google.com/r/mosabua-roboguice-clean/ mosabua-roboguice-clean-virgin
hg clone mosabua-roboguice-clean-virgin mosabua-roboguice-clean-working
Note that because Mercurial uses hard links for local clones and because that first clone was a clone with -U (no working directory (bare repo in git terms)) this takes up no additional disk space.
Work all you want in robo-guice working and pull in robo-guice virgin to see what's going on upstream, and pull again in roboguice-working to get upstream changes.
You can do something like this after the fact by creating a new clone of the remote repo and if diskspace is precious use the relink extension to associate them.
Preface - all history changes have sense only for non-published repos. You'll have to push to GoogleCode's repo from scratch after editing local history (delete repo on GC, create empty, push) - otherwise you'll gust get one more HEAD in default branch
Manfred
Easy (but not short) way - default only+MQ
as Greg mentioned, install MQ
move all your commits into MQ-patches on top of upstream code
leave your changes as pathes forever
check, edit if nesessary and re-integrate patches after each upstream pull (this way your own CG-repo without MQ-patches will become identical to upstream)
More complex - MQ in the middle + separate branches
above
above
create named branch, switch to it
"Finish" patches
Pull upstream, merge with your branch changes (from defaut to yourbranch)
Commit your changes only into yourbranch
Rebasing
Enable rebase extension
Create named branch (with changeset in it? TBT)
Rebase your changesets to the new ancestor, test results
See 5-6 from "More complex" chapter
Perhaps you could try the Convert extension. It can bring a repository in a better shape, while preserving history. Of course, after the modifications have been done, you will have to delete the old repo and upload the converted one.
In my repo, I have the revisions 1 to 10. I've pushed up to 5 (so the next hg push would publish revisions 6-10).
But I have to interrupt my work now and the result isn't 100% complete. So I'd like to move the revisions 6-10 into a new "experimental" branch to allow someone else to complete the work without disrupting the sources for everyone.
How can I add a branch to a non-tip revision (in my case: Starting with revision 6)? Or should I use a completely different approach?
You cannot apply a branch name after the fact without modifying your history.
The most simple approach is to ask the other users to use revision 5 as the parent for any changes they create. For example, the other users would:
hg clone <your repo> or even hg clone --rev 5
hg update -r 5
work, work, work
hg commit
When they commit a change, it will create a second head on the default branch, but that should not create any problems. You will simply need to merge the two heads together once your experimental changes are complete.
That being said, moving your changesets onto a branch can be accomplished using Mercurial Queues (MQ). The following sequence shows how it be done:
hg qinit (Create a new patch queue)
hg qimport --rev 6:10 (import r6-10 into a new patch queue)
hg qpop -a (remove all patches from your working copy)
hg branch <branch name> (create your new experimental branch)
hg qpush -a (apply all the patches to your branch)
hg qfinish -a (convert all patches to permanent changesets)
Tim already has good suggestions. Additionally you could push your experimental changes into a distinct experimental clone on your central server (I guess you use one). This clone could also be used by other developers to push their not-yet-finished work in order to let others review or continue it. It is also clear that this clone's code is not ready to be used. Once some task is finished, the corresponding changesets can be pushed to the stable repository.
Actually named branches are a good idea for your case, but the fact that their names are burned into history mostly is more a problem than a feature. IMHO Git's branch names are more practically. However, to some extend you could also handle your case with bookmarks, which are pushable since Mercurial 1.7 (not sure here). That is you bookmark revision 5 with something like stable (or whatever you agree on in your team) and revision 10 gets bookmarked with something like Aarons-not-finished-work. The other developers would then just pull stable, except your colleague who is supposed to continue your work, who would pull the other bookmark. However, personally I did not use a such workflow yet, so I cannot say if it performs well in practice.
I've just got a problem with hg push command. What I did - Firstly I created 2 branches hot-fix-1 and hot-fix-2 made some changes in each branche, merged it back to default and closed those branches with the command:
hg commit --close-branch
If I start hg branches I have the following output:
default 29:e62a2c57b17c
hg branches -c gives me:
default 29:e62a2c57b17c
hot-fix-2 27:42f7bf715392 (closed)
hot-fix-1 26:dd98f50934b0 (closed)
Thus hot-fix-* branches seems to be closed. However if I try to push the changes I have the next error message:
pushing to /Users/user1/projects/mercurial/mytag
searching for changes
abort: push creates new remote branches: hot-fix-1, hot-fix-2!
(use 'hg push --new-branch' to create new remote branches)
and it does not matter which command I use hg push -b . or hg push -b default
So the question is how I can push those changes to repository without creating new branches.
P.S I used to work with git and was hoping that similar branching model can be used in Mercurial. Thanks
First, as many others have pointed out, using a named branch for short lived work is not a recommended practice. Named branches are predominantly for long lived features, or for release management.
Given that you are in this situation, there are a few options available. All of them involve modifying history (as you're obviously trying to change something you've done).
One is to just push the branches as is, learn from the experience, and move on. If the rest of the team is fine with this, then it's a case of adding --new-branch to your push command.
If the rest of the team, or you, really want the history to be clean, then you'll need to dig deeper.
If you aren't pushing, then definitely make a clone of your current repo. This way you have a copy of the original work to fall back on.
I see 2 main approaches here. Strip off the merges and rebase your branches onto default. This will get rid of the named branches or graft/transplant your changes. Both will be the same end result, but the implementation is slightly different.
If you merely want to use graft, that is now a built-in function starting with HG 2.0. It replaces the transplant plugin, and is much nicer to work with as it uses your usual merge tool if there are conflicts.
To use it, update to the default branch. Then, use the command:
hg graft -D "2085::2093 and not 2091"
the string after -D is an hg revision selection query. In your case, you'd likely only need '{start}::{end}' where start is the changeset at the start of the branch, and end is the end changeset of the branch (ignoring the merge).
If you did several merges, you'd have to pick and choose the changesets more precisely.
The other option is to strip the final merges, and use the rebase command that is part of the mq plugin.
You'll have to strip your merge changesets to get rid of them, and then update to the tip of the branch you want to keep. Select the start of the first named branch, and do a rebase. This will change the parentage of the branch (if you're familiar with Git, then this is very much like it's rebase).
Then repeat for the second branch. You should now have one long branch with the name default.
Just do the:
hg push --new-branch
It will send over those branches, but they'll be closed on the receiving end too, so no one should be bothered.
See my comment on the question for why Named Branches are best saved for long-lived entities like 'stable' and anonymous branches, bookmarks, or clones are more suitable for short lived things like hot-fixes and new features.
Your hot-fix changes were made on branches. Regardless of whether the branch is active or closed, it does exist.
To push the changes to the server (without rewriting history), you must use the --new-branch option (e.g. hg push --new-branch`).
Since you merged the branches into default, there will still only be one head (as you have already seen in your local repo).
If you really can't live with pushing the branches to the server, then you must rewrite your local history as suggested in Mikezx6r's answer.
In addition to the methods he mentioned, you can also import the changesets into a patch queue and apply them to the tip of your default.