I have a dependancy as a subrepository (without write access to) in my project.
I'd like to add a few personal customizations to that subrepository - possibly using mq.
I also would love to be able to just clone the main repo to build it. Currently I have to:
clone the repo - with subrepositories getting cloned automagically
manually clone all the patchqueues for subrepositories
How do I get rid of step 2? Is it even possible without an outside script? (I'm using bitbucket if it makes any difference).
One notion is to make the subrepo not the repo to which you have no write access, but a clone of your own based on their repo.
cd myclones
hg clone http://notmydomain.com/their-repo my-clone-of-their-repo
and in your project's .hg/hgrc you use a [subpaths] section to map their URL to your local clone:
[subpaths]
http://notmydomain.com/their-repo = ../my-clone-of-their-repo
Then you end up with your repo using your local (read-write) clone of their repo to which you otherwise have read-only access. This has a few benefits:
faster -- you're only checking local repositories for all actions
writeable -- you can edit directoy in myproject/their-repo and commit and push (to your local clone)
And when you want to merge in their upstream changes you just go into ../my-clone-of-their-repo and hg pull and hg merge their updates into your customizations.
Related
I have a shell repository OriginalWithSubrepo with a subrepository Sub containing a bunch of actual files.
When I clone OriginalWithSubrepo like this
hg clone --pull --noupdate "C:\TestRepo\OriginalWithSubrepo" "C:\TestRepo\OriginalWithSubrepo-clone"
The clone thus created contains just a few mercurial housekeeping files, there is no actual data from the original Sub\.hg directory. I don't know what those files mean but apparently they are enough to recreate the repo because when I update the working directory in clone, the whole thing gets filled out with all the files, including inside the Sub\.hg directory. However, if I clone, then rename the original, and then attempt to update the clone, it doesn't work saying the OriginalWithSubrepo is not found, which means it's all based on links to the original.
This problem doesn't arise when I run clone with update, or when I clone a repository without subrepos.
It behaves the same when I clone to a network share, which is where I really want it to work.
So how do I make a fully independent clone of a repo with subrepos (w/o a simultaneous update)?
Windows XP, hg version 3.4.1
When you add the first subrepo to the parent repo, .hgsub is added to the parent repo. The subrepo only becomes a subrepo from the changeset that commits .hgsub.
When you do hg clone --noupdate --pull parent parent-clone, parent-clone is not at any changeset yet, and so not yet at a changeset at which the subrepo has been created
So how do I make a fully independent clone of a repo with subrepos (w/o a simultaneous update)?
I don't think you can do this as such.
But this may achieve what you're trying to do (I'm reading between the lines here, but I'm guessing to have the repo on the share, but without any files visible):
Create repos on your network share for your parent and sub \\fileserver\repos\OriginalWithSub\ and \\fileserver\repos\Sub\
Modify your local OriginalWithSub .hgsub set the remote path to be \\fileserver\repos\Sub\ and commit.
push your local repositories to their respective network share equivalents.
Both repositories now exist on the network share, without any files visible apart from inside .hg, and you can clone \\fileserver\repos\OriginalWithSub\ (with update) from another computer and get the full history of both OriginalWithSub and Sub.
We have a project that lives in a mercurial repository.
Our customer would like to take ownership of the code base by doing the following:
Set up a mercurial repository on a server belonging to the customer.
Import the existing code into the new mercurial repository.
What is the best way to achieve step 2?
Is it a simple matter of doing the following:
Clone the existing mercurial repository:
hg clone <existing mercurial repo URL>
Push the cloned repository into the new one:
hg push <new mercurial repo URL>
Am I missing any steps? What about the hgrc file? Does it have to be modified in any way prior to pushing the project into a new repository?
Yes, you can do what you state, however it is worth noting that if you do a simple hg clone of your main repository, then a link will exist between the two, which may not be what you want. You can remove this link by editing the .hg/hgrc file and removing the default = ... item in the [paths] section.
I find that a better way is to do it without cloning. This way you don't have the link between repositories, which as this is going to a customer may be what you want.
The basic method is to set up a new repository with no changesets, and then bring in all of the changesets in one of three ways:
Push the changes from your repository to the new repository.
Pull the changes from into the new repository from the old.
If you don't have access to the new repository, create a bundle that can be provided to the customer - this can then be unbundled or pulled into the empty repo.
Pushing and Pulling is done as you normally would, but specifying the repository location:
// create the empty repository
hg init .
// pull in everything from the old repo
hg pull /projects/myOriginalRepo
or to push...
// create the empty repository
hg init /projects/myNewRepo
cd /projects/myOriginalRepo
hg push /projects/myNewRepo
Creating a bundle is perhaps a nicer way, as you can write the bundle onto a DVD and give it to your customer wrapped in a bow with a nice greeting card:
cd /projects/myOriginalRepo
hg bundle --all ../repo.bundle
Everything gets written out to a single file, which can then be extracted with hg unbundle repo.bundle or hg pull repo.bundle, into a repository with no existing changesets.
Regarding the hgrc file, as already mentioned in another answer it is not a controlled file, and so won't be copied. However, any contents are likely things like hooks to perform auto-building, or validating changesets before they are applied. This is logic which would probably only make sense to your own organisation, and I would suggest you wouldn't want this to be imposed on your customer - they are, after all, taking ownership of your code-base, and may have their own systems in place for things like this.
In the simple case - it's all.
But if you have modified .hg/hgrc file then you need to move it to the remote server manually and (if necessary) modify it correspondingly to a new environment.
Ie: you could have hooks set up in the original repository.
As of clients - just change a path to a repository in a default section (or any other section if you have several specified)
To move the master repository, you need to (a) create the new master repo and (b) tell the existing clients about it.
Create the new master repo any way you want: cloning or init+pushing, it makes little difference. Be sure to move any contents of the old repo that are not under version control, including .hgrc and any unversioned or ignored files that are not discardable. If you cloned, edit the new master's .hgrc and remove the default path, so that it doesn't try to talk to the old master repo any more.
Existing clones of the old master repo still push/pull from the old master. Everyone must edit their .hgrc, updating default (and/or default-push) so that it points to the new location. (They may also need to update authentication credentials, of course).
Only then is the migration complete. Remove (or move/hide) the original repo so that if someone forgot to update their repo path, they'll get an error on push/pull instead of pouring data down a memory hole.
Summarised Question:
Are github-hosted sub repositories within a mercurial/kiln repository possible, and if so are they automatically updated/cloned when the parent mercurial repository is operated on by a hg clone or hg commit command?
Detailed Question:
Following on from my question that was answered so excellently here , some of my third party code is in folders I downloaded a while ago from opensource efforts on github. Since at that stage I was not using version control, those folders where just standard folders that now been incorporated as sub repositories in mercurial.
This is obviously not ideal, as for one thing, new versions of the libraries may have bug fixes, or new features I wish to use in the future. I also may need to locally customise some of the libraries.
I can see from reading this link that it possible to have mercurial "know" about those git server urls (and revisions), so I can then have mercurial clone the github hosted libraries direct from their parent repos.
Am I right in saying that when I clone the parent (mercurial) repos, those files will be pulled from github, without having to separately manage this using git?
What is also not clear is, if I were to do this, and it transpired that code might need to be customized from within that github-cloned repository, would I need to use git to manage revisions of the local files, or would mercurial do that by proxy? eg id I were to hg commit -S would mercurial invoke git on my behalf to handle that?
Am I right in saying that when I clone the parent (mercurial) repos, those files will be pulled from github, without having to separately manage this using git?
Yes, clone of a Mercurial repository that contain subrepositories will trigger a clone of the subrepos too. It really happens on update. Mercurial notices the .hgsub file and issues the needed hg clone and git clone commands for you. It uses the information in .hgsubstate to know exactly what revision to checkout.
The subrepositories can be hosted anywhere. For a Git subrepository declared like
foo = [git]https://github.com/user/repo.git
Mercurial will simply issue the corresponding clone command:
git clone https://github.com/user/repo.git foo
It's then your reponsibility to later go into the foo repo and use Git to fetch new commits as necessary. After you fetch/pull new commits, you can make a top-level commit to record the new state of the subrepo in the .hgsubstate file. Use hg summary to see if a subrepo is dirty in this sense.
[...] would I need to use git to manage revisions of the local files, or would mercurial do that by proxy? eg id I were to hg commit -S would mercurial invoke git on my behalf to handle that?
When you edit files and make a top-level hg commit, Mercurial will make sure to commit the subrepo first (if you use hg commit -S or if ui.commitsubrepos=True). If you make a top-level push, then Mercurial will always push the subrepos first so that you always have a consistent set of changes on your server.
I'm starting with Mercurial. I'm reading the mercurial book but still have a question.
I've started my project month ago, and i have a lot of files and directories in it. Now, i want to use Mercurial and made myself an account in bitbucket. Now, i want to set this project up in Bitbucket. How can i add all those files to the bitbucket repo?
This is what i was thinking i could do:
I could try to (1) clone the empty repo (from bitbucket) (1) copy all files into that directory, (3) issue an "hg add" and after that (4) commiting.
Maybe you have a better way to do this.
Thanks!
(1)
hg clone https://ME#bitbucket.org/ME/myproject
(2)
cp existing-project/* myproject/
cd myproject
(3)
hg add
(4)
hg commit -u ME
(5)
hg push (i think i have to do this to make the changes visible)
You can simply hg init, hg add, and hg commit in the original project folder, then edit ~/project/.hg/hgrc to add a default-push location of your bitbucket repo (you can clone it to a temporary folder to get the hgrc created for you which you can copy into your project, even, without needing to RTFM for the right syntax.)
Because of the distributed nature of mercurial, this hgrc entry is the only thing relating your local repo to bitbucket at all; you can even hg push https://ME#bitbucket.org/ME/myproject without making the link explicit anywhere. Each copy of a repository is completely self-sufficient.
Wooble's answer is ok, but it's missing something, so I'm supplementing here.
When you first create an empty repository (by hg init or creating on bitbucket), it has no identity. However, as soon as it has any changesets, it has an identity and you can only push/pull between it and repositories that share that identity.
If you had 2 repositories A and B for separate projects, you wouldn't be able push/pull between them. Once you create a new repository on bitbucket you can push changesets from either A or B to that repo once. If you push changes from B that first time, the bitbucket repository is now related to B. You can't then push changesets from A into it, or pull changesets into A from it.
So when Wooble says,
...this hgrc entry is the only thing relating your local repo to bitbucket at all;
That is correct while it is still empty as it is not related to any repositories until it has changesets. And you still need that address to be able to push/pull between your local repo and the bitbucket repo, but once you've pushed changesets to it it also has that identity that relates it to your local repo.
As a Git user, I find it inconvenient to set up multiple directories for multiple Mercurial remote repositories, as I want to quickly switch between them, especially when working in an IDE.
I'm trying to somehow replicate the remote branches system from git, where I can simply switch between branches and push to the one I choose.
How can I easily track multiple remote branches in the same directory with Mercurial?
I am not a Mercurial guru, but this is the method I would try.
There is no direct method of doing this with Mercurial, but it can be accomplished using a combination of:
The bookmarks extension
Path entries in your hgrc file
The initial setup would require you to:
Set your default path for pull to '.' (to prevent accidentally pushing to the wrong tracking branch when hg push is invoked with no arguments)
Create a bookmark at your tip to represent the tip of master (in Git speak)
Then when you want to track a new remote:
Create a path entry in your hgrc for the remote
Create a bookmark for the remote
With that done your can do things like:
hg update tracking_branch_1
hg pull remote_1
...review the branch and decide if you want to merge...then
hg update master
hg merge tracking_branch_1