Updating to the head of a named branch in mercurial - mercurial

How do I update to the head of a named branch (regardless if it is tip or not)? When I pull form the server (hg pull --branch [named branch]) the repo does not go to the head of that branch. I would try updating to tip but the head of the named branch is not necessarily the tip.
Thanks in advance for the help.

You do it with:
hg update branchname
which updates you to the "most tipward head on that branch" becuase, of course, a branch can have multiple heads.
When you do hg pull --branch branchname what you're doing is pulling "all the changesets on branch branchname and all the changesets not on branchname that are ancestors of any changeset on branchname" which isn't terribly useful.
You're better off just doing the update after the pull.

Related

How to use hg to back branch?

I have local branch and master branch. I use hg merge local branch with master branch, after that I find that master branch version is modified and I have to merge with new master branch.
I don't know how to back local branch status and merge new master branch.
If you committed the merge and then found that there were new changesets on master, you could do either of:
hg pull the new changesets, then hg merge again, then push the two merges.
hg strip your merge, then hg pull and hg merge <localbranch> again.
If you haven't committed first merge yet, you could hg update default -C to throw out the merge changes, then hg pull and hg merge <localbranch> again.

Branches in Git vs Mercurial

How do I return to a certain changeset (or tag) and branch out from that commit?
Once I branch out and committed changes won't affect the original branch?
|
tag-----------------
| \
branch-1 branch-2
hg update branch-1
hg branch branch-2
edit
hg commit
Note that this is named branches and there are other ways to branch in Mercurial.

How can I move a changeset from a remotely deleted branch to another branch?

So someone deleted a remote branch, but a changeset was lost when he deleted the branch.
I have the changeset on my local repository and tried to merge the changeset to my default branch, then I pushed, but I got an error "abort: push creates new remote head 650367cd0ff4 on branch 'rc'!"
There are few options, depending on the situation you have:
If the whole branch was stripped and you have that branch locally then you can push it again:
hg push --new-branch
This is recommended, because Mercurial will anyway send your local commits to remote repo every time you will do push (until you strip these commits locally). You can then close unwanted branch with --close-branch (this will leave all commits in repo, but just mark branch as closed/unused).
hg ci --close-branch
Graft the wanted commit locally from some branch to other:
hg graft -r 123
hg push
Create new remote head ("abort: push creates new remote head 650367cd0ff4 on branch 'rc'!"). It's nothing wrong, it just means that one of your branches will have two separate top commits. These commits can be merged together later.
hg push -f

Mercurial - determine which repository a changeset was pushed to?

If you hg push changeset A into repository myapp-v1 and then do an hg pull and hg merge to merge that into myapp-v2, is there a way in the myapp-v2 repository to identify that the changeset was originally checked into myapp-v1?
No. DVCS is DVCS and commited changeset haven't any origin-data after transfer to other clones
Workaround - permanent attributes of each changeset are
branch
author name
you can use these signs

Using Mercurial, do we need to "hg merge -r 6880" if there is an extra branch?

For Mercurial, right now there is default branch and newfeature branch... is it true that if I am on
the newfeature branch, and do an hg pull and hg update, it will always ask me to merge? (if there are changesets that I pulled)
Also, it seems that I cannot just do hg merge? I need to use hg heads and then look at what the newfeature branch's head is (say it is revision 6880),
then I need to hg merge -r 6880? Because otherwise, will Mercurial merge the newfeature branch with the default branch automatically? I cannot do hg merge -b newfeature, it seems, as there is no -b option for hg merge.
Is there an easier way other than using hg heads to look for the revision to merge? Isn't there a more automatic way?
You've got two questions there, let me take them one at a time (with a little paraphrasing):
Q. When I hg pull and get a new head Mercurial suggest I hg merge. Do I have to?
A. No. Mercurial is just warning you you have more heads than than you did, and that if you don't like that arrangement you can merge to stop it. Named branches are heads, so you'll see that warning if pulling gets you a new head
Q. If I want to merge one named branch into another do I have to provide the revision number?
A. No. It's true that hg merge will only automatically select heads on the same named branch, but you can do hg merge -r newfeature and that merges in the changeset from the point of divergence up to the head on newfeature (6880 in your example) exactly the same as hg update -r 6880 would.
In either case, after committing that merge you'll have no heads on newfeature (the new, resulting head is on default because that was the branch name of your parent before you started the merge. However, just doing this after the merge:
hg update newfeature
...code....
hg commit
will create a new head on the newfeature branch, and you're right back as you were before the merge, except all of the changes that were on new feature are also available in default now.
If you pull a changeset or changesets from one branch into another branch that share the same root changeset. Mercurial will have multiple heads as you have so noticed. It will only suggest that you merge when you do an hg update on one of the branches.
You shouldn't have to specify which revision to merge to, assuming that you want to merge the tips of each of the branches. hg merge should suffice.
Your command structure should look as follow
hg pull -b 'branchYouWantToPullFrom`
hg update
hg merge
hg commit
hg merge works in your working copy, which is always connected to a specific branch.
You have to specify a branch name only if you want to merge your current branch with another branch: hg merge branch_name.
hg pull updates your repository with all remote changes. Then you have to update your working copy, that is connected to a specific branch. So, when you type hg update command, you update your working copy with all changes in your current branch.
If you want to switch to another branch you have to type hg update branch_name. You can type hg branch to know your current branch.
The only reason to merge with a specific revision is when you have three or more heads, a strange situation probably caused by some hg push -f (extremely bad practice). If you are in this situation, the right way to know which revisions you have to merge is hg heads. In a normal situation hg heads returns one head per branch, so you don't have to merge two heads of different branches if you don't want.
If you're working on a branch and someone has committed and pushed some changes on the same branch, you have to pull and merge before your push, simply with hg merge, no revision or branch.
I hope this will help you.