I have a commit i pushed earlier today that i learned i had messed up on by not adding the correct files before pushing. I fixed the revision and re-pushed it, so now i have a revision containing literally nothing new and my real revision. This could really confuse my other team members working, so i would like to either merge both together or remove my 'blank' revision.
Here is a picture of my problem:
http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/3929/revisionproblem.png
Note that i cannot undo/rollback, it tells me the transaction is not available.
If you've pushed it there's very little you can do. You could hg strip it from your local repo, but you'll get it back the next time you pull. You could edit history with hg histedit or merge two changesets with hg collapse, but none of that will get rid of the changeset you've pushed.
That said, the comment in your screenshot, "I just rolled back my latest push...", has me thinking you might have hg push and hg commit confused. They're entirely different and hg push can't be rolled back (locally). A hg push sends your local changesets out to the world -- no takebacks. A hg commit creates a new local changeset.
If you've misstated your problem and you've merely hg commited a changeset you regret you have all the extension-based options I listed above available to you. If you've really pushed it -- welcome to DVCS usage: once it's out there it's out there, and the best you can do it correct it in a subsequent commit.
Related
I committed some changes in hg, then checked out the parent of that commit and made other changes followed by another commit (from that parent).
What happened to the 1st commit? How can I find and recover it? I don't see it in the log.
What happened to the 1st commit?
It should still be there. Making the extra commit should have just created another head within the branch.
How can I find and recover it?
It should also be obvious (for finding), in Mercurial, which makes me wonder:
I don't see it in the log.
How exactly are you looking at the commit log? If you just run hg log or hg log -b <branch>, you should see all commits, or all commits in the given branch, in reverse numerical order. If you use hg log --follow, commits not reachable from the current commit will seem to disappear, because, as the documentation says:
--follow without a filename will only show ancestors or descendants of the starting revision.
In any case, you can do revision surgery if you really want to, but the simplest thing is just to merge the heads. Use hg heads . to view the heads in the current branch; check out one, and merge another, to combine the two commits with a new merge commit, making both previous heads become ordinary non-head commits, with the new merge being a single head in that branch.
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 using mercurial VCS, I've mistakenly pushed three commits and I want them to be undone, can this be achieved?
I'm pretty sure no changes were propagated to anyone from the repository I pushed to, so I'm confident that this won't break anyones code...
I've tried hg rollback but since I have pushed I cannot undo anything in the right way. Also I know about hg backout, but I'm not sure if I should use this one for what I need...
Thanks!
EDIT
This is the graph log, I forgot to mention that some commits were part of a merge, but they too need to be undone...
tip
|
a
| \
| b
| /
c
|
d
I need to return the tip to c, or d if there is no other way to prevent that because of the merge...
If it's already pushed, there are only two things that you can do now:
1) If you are able to delete the central repository and replace it by another one:
You can clone the central repository, but tell Mercurial to clone only up to changeset "c".
Then you can take this repository (which doesn't have the wrong changes) and replace the "old" central repository (the one which does have the wrong changes) with it.
Disadvantage: if someone already pulled the unwanted commits and later pushes again, they are in the repository again.
So you need to make sure that either no one pulled the mistakes, or everybody who did deletes his clone.
2) If option 1 is not possible, you can use hg backout to undo the effects of the wrong changes - not the changesets themselves.
Quote from the link:
Backout works by applying a changeset that's the opposite of the changeset to be backed out. That new changeset is committed to the repository, and eventually merged.
So the three wrong changesets will remain in the repository, plus another three will be added, each of them reverting the effects of one of the three wrong changesets.
If you do it like this, it doesn't matter if someone else already pulled the wrong changes...as soon as he pulls the three "backout" changesets as well, everything is okay again.
If you're positive the push is the last thing that happened to that remote repository, meaning neither you nor anyone else has pushed to it, you can login to that system and run hg rollback.
If it's a repository on a machine to which you can ssh you can run this command on your local system:
ssh you#there hg -R /path/to/the/repo rollback
As always please do be really careful with rollback. It undoes the last action on the repository without altering the working directory at all, and it's not always clear what the last action was. For example, this is datalosss:
...hack...
hg commit -m 'important work'
hg update somewhere else
hg rollback
Yikes!
I have got a requirement where I need to rollback last 10 commits. How can I do it. Please help.
The easiest thing would be to clone the repo until the last commit you want to keep.
hg clone -r last_commit_to_keep myrepo mynewrepo
If you haven't yet pushed, then you can use the Strip extension.
If you have pushed then It would be better to backout the commits.
Backing out a commit makes an additional commit of the exact opposite of the commit being removed, which gets appended to the repo. Hence you can still see the original commits in the repo history.
We converted everything to Mercurial coming from CVS and so far so good. An issue we encountered today though is this situation.
Before the move to Mercurial I had a few pending changes from a while back, features that were started and later postponed for various reason. Odds are that someone else will finish those features months from now picking up from where I left off.
After cloning the new Mercurial repository I created separate branches to isolate those features.
It left me with something like this (made up rev. number)
hg update default
hg branch feature1
hg commit -m "Description of what I was doing in feature1"
hg update default
hg branch feature2
hg commit -m "Description of what I was doing feature2" (my tip is now here)
hg update default
hg push -f (to force the creation of my new branches, w/o affecting default, I haven't merged them)
During this the team have been working and pushing to our central repository so the default branch is say rev 40 (tip)
Now my push -f worked fine but positioned (tip) to my latest change -> 50:feature3 (tip). I was expecting the tip to stay at default on the central repository and just have my branches in there for someone to pick them up whenever. The graph also looks pretty funny when I use hgwebdir so I am pretty sure that's the wrong approach.
How would I do this? Should I close the branch first? Is tip actually important or just meta-data.
tip is always the most recent changeset added to the repository. From hg help revs:
The reserved name "tip" is a special tag that always identifies the most recent revision.
So long as the head of the default branch is what you expect, you'll be OK. No need to close the branch (but it's better to use hg push --new-branch if your version of Mercurial is new enough to support it).
tip is just an automatically-applied label referring to (I think) the most recent commit. Not a big deal; it's just there for convenience.
The tip label is pure meta-data and always points to the changeset with the highest revision number -- there is no more logic than that.
However, the fact that tip now points to a changeset on the feature branch wont cause you any trouble. When people make a clone, they will automatically be updated to the tip-most changeset on the default branch. So they can begin working right away after a clone. Furthermore, people who already have a clone will stay on their named branch when they run hg update. Here hg update takes you to the tip-most changeset on that named branch, e.g., on default if that is where you started.
People may think that hg update tip is the same as hg update, but that is only when there are no named branches at play. With named branches, giving an explicit revision name such as tip can changeset your named branch -- a plain hg update cannot.