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
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.
When I create repository and push on server and when we clone the repository in local system the files are come with red signal means they are changed.
When we compare both repository I found that the content of files in .hg folder is changed.
Can anyone pls tell me how to remove this problem!
Edit:
When we change the .hg folder the red icon becomes green!!!!
If you take 1 modified (changed) file, watch the diff closely, and only see the difference is in new lines only, this is the classical newlines mess.
(happens to most people when working crossplatform)
There is a ready to use Mercurial Extension, taking care of this is problem.
It's called eol.
Learn how to use it and the problem from here:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/EolExtension
how do you push localy created repository to server? If there is no repo with same name(on server), you could not be able to create remote repo by push, you have to clone it to the server. Or, if there already is repository with same name, and you push some new localy created, there definitely will be something more in .hg on the server then on the local. Check if there isn't repo with same name on the server already. HTH
Recently I started working on a "portable" version of a project by copying all the files to a new directory. The portable directory differs from the stable directory only in terms of what has been deleted or commented out; nothing has been added.
I finally decided it's time to learn source control. Everyone says simply starting is more important than anything else, and I ultimately chose Mercurial since it's good for branching and (more importantly) I liked the tutorials I found online (e.g., http://hginit.com and http://hgbook.red-bean.com/).
I made a repository for my stable directory, and a clone in a central repository (Dropbox). I'm committing, pushing, etc. Now, however, I'd like to link my (already existing) portable directory with the central repository. I'd like to be able to, say, fix a bug in my stable code, push it to the central repo, and then pull the bug fix into the portable version--without changing anything else in the portable code.
I'm unsure what to do first with the portable code. If I clone the central repo to the portable directory, won't all my portable code be overwritten the first time I update the portable directory?
You will need to clone the "central" repository to your portable directory before you will be able to do any work like you describe. However, an easy fix is to copy you portable directory somewhere else and create a new, empty folder. Then, clone your repository into that directory. After that, you should be able to just copy and paste your previous portable directory into the cloned version and allow it to overwrite the files there. That will allow you to commit those changes into version control and be in sync with the central repository.
If this method won't work, you will still have to clone the central repository and then make all of your "pending" changes to the existing portable location by hand to your new cloned version.
It sounds like the portable version should be a branch in your stable repo. Since you've already got an existing version that isn't in the repository I think the easiset way to do this is with the addremove command.
What I would do is first make sure any recent changes to your stable branch and make sure you've got a backup copy of your repo somewhere in case anything goes wrong. Then I would delete everything from your stable repository directory except for the .hg directory and any other repository management files such as .hgignore, .hgsub, .hgeol, etc. Then I would copy the portable version into that directory and run hg addremove. The addremove command will automatically add all new files and remove all missing files (which should be just removes in this case). Now I would mark this as a separate branch with hg branch <branch_name> where <branch_name> is whatever you want to name your portable branch. Then just hg commit as usual.
Now you've got your stable branch (called 'default' unless you've renamed it) and your new portable branch. Now when you make changes to the stable branch you can hg update to your portable branch and run hg merge default (or replace default with your stable branch's name) to merge those changes into the portable branch.
Newbie alert!
OK, I have a working central Mercurial repository that I've been working with for several weeks.
Everything has been great until I hit a really bizarre problem: my central server doesn't seem to be synced to itself? I only have one file that seems to be out-of-sync right now, but I really need to know how this happened to prevent it from happening in the future.
Scenario:
1) created Mercurial repository on server using an existing project directory. The directory contained the file 'mypage.aspx'.
2) On my workstation, I cloned the central repository
3) I made an edit to mypage.aspx
4) hg commit, then hg push from my workstation to the central server
5) now if I look at mypage.aspx on the server's repository using TortoiseHg's repository explorer, I see the change history for mypage.aspx -- an initial check-in and one edit. However, when I select 'Diff to local', it shows the current version on the server's disk is the original version, not the edited version!
I have not experimented with branching at all yet, so I'm sure I'm not getting a branch problem.
'hg status' on the server or client returns no pending changes.
If I create a clone of the server's repository to a new location, I see the same change history as I would expect, but the file on disk doesn't contain my edit.
So, to recap:
Central repository = original file, but shows change in revision history (bad)
Local repository 'A' = updated file, shows change in revision history (good)
Local repository 'B' = original file, but shows change in revision history (bad)
Help please!
Thanks,
David
Sounds like you're looking at the working copy on the central repo. Just like your local repo, there is a working copy. Running hg update (or "Update to branch tip" in TortoiseHg) should sync the central repo's working copy to the latest.
This is normal, as the repository on the server has two components: the actual repository of changesets (in the .hg subdirectory), and a working copy. When you push changes from the local repository on your workstation to the server repository, it updates the repository files on the server (in the .hg subdir), but it does not change the working copy files (outside the .hg subdir): this would require an explicit update operation on the server to change the working copy.
If the server repository is only being used as a repository, and you do all your actual work in clones, then you're probably better off using a "bare repository" on the server (just delete the working copy files and just keep only .hg subdirectory itself).
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