We have an hgrc file that contains settings that should be global to all members of our development team. When I make changes to my hgrc file I do not appear to be able to have these changes propagate to anybody else who clones a repo.
Is there a way to keep these configs global to any user of the repo?
Repo track thyself!
$REPO/.hg/hgrc is not tracked by Mercurial. This is by design for security reason.
You can commit template and create project policy that require setting several setting to $REPO/.hg/hgrc or add to build scripts helper target to deploy template to $REPO/.hg.
I recommend use precommit hooks on central server to ensue that all changes are good. Look to
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/HookExamples
http://hg.python.org/hooks/ -hooks from Python project.
Note that some files Mercurial treated as special, for example $REPO/.hgignore or .hgeol for EOL plug-in. These files you can commit, so they are easy sharing in dev team.
Related
Getting ready to launch a website/project that was in beta testing. I want to switch it over to version control (Mercurial since I'm familiar with it).
Problem is, I am not sure how to go about doing it since the code on the website is already up and in-use and how to deal with the directories I do not need to manage (vendor and web/Upload).
Whats the best way to go about this?
Would I put the entire site into a folder, init a Merc repo, use hgignore to not track vendor and web/Upload, commit, then clone it to the live server?
Thanks! Just confused on what to do since the site is live and has user uploads.
I'm assuming you want to turn the website directory on your web server into a Mercurial repository. If that's the case, you would create a new repository somewhere on that computer, then move the .hg directory in the new repository into the website directory you want to be the root of the repository. You should then be able to run
hg add * --exclude vendor --exclude web/Upload
hg commit -m "Adding site to version control."
to get all the non-user files into version control.
I recommend, however, that you write a script or investigate tools that will deploy your website out of a repository outside your web root. You don't want your .hg directory exposed to the world. Until you get a deploy script/tool working, make sure you tell your webserver to prohibit/reject all requests to your .hg directory.
A noob question... i think
I use Mercurial for my project on my laptop. How do i submit the project to an online server like codeplex?
I'm using tortoisehg and i cant find the upload interface for submit the project online...
From the command line, the command is:
hg push <url>
to push changes a remote repository.
In TortoiseHg, this is accessed through the "Synchronize" function, which seems to show up if you right-click in a Windows Explorer window but not on any file. It's also available in the workbench; the icon is 2 arrows pointing in a circle.
For these things, I find the best way to go is to use the command line interface - TortoiseHG is OK if you need to perform some common operations from the file browser, and it's a nice tool to visualize some aspects of your repository, but it doesn't implement all of mercurial's features in full detail, and it renames and bundles some operations for no apparent reason.
I don't know how things work at codeplex, but I assume it is similar to bitbucket or github, in which case here's what you'd do:
Create an empty repository on the remote end (codeplex / bitbucket / ...).
Find the remote repository's URL - for bitbucket, it is https://bitbucket.org/yourname/project, or ssh://hg#bitbucket.org/yourname/project.
From your local repository, commit all pending changes, then issue the command: hg push {remote_url}, where {remote_url} is the URL of the remote repository. This will push all committed changes from your local repository to the remote repository.
Since the remote's head revision (an empty project) is the same as the first revision in your local copy (because all hg repositories start out empty), mercurial should consider the two repositories related and accept the push.
For an introductory guide to command-line mercurial, I recommend http://hginit.com/
I'm new to Perforce and Mercurial, so bear with me. I would like to use Mercurial to interface with Perforce in the following way:
I check-out a local Perforce workspace using the P4V client. I then clone a Mercurial repo of that workspace, and use this cloned repo for all my work. When I need updated files, I would first update the local Perforce workspace, and then have the Mercurial repo pull from that. When I'm ready to commit, I push my changes to the local Perforce workspace. Then I use the P4V client to commit my changes in the Perforce workspace to the Perforce depot. Essentially, the local Perforce workspace is a proxy for the Perforce repot.
The reason behind this set-up (versus the common scenario of directly pulling from and pushing to the Perforce repot) is that there is some configuration I need to do via the P4V client (such as mapping/renaming files and directories).
I've looked at the convert and perfarce extensions, but I'm not quite sure they do what I want. They seem to do a one-time conversion, and then thereafter they talk directly to the Perforce repot. Any help would be appreciated.
Convert does an incremental conversion, where it will convert only new changes, but it's unidirectional only (perforce -> mercurial).
I've not looked at the perfarce extension, but it's my understanding that's it's built for a bi-directional, continuous process -- you might want to look at it again.
Alternately, the non-extension options on the Working with Subversion page in the mercurial wiki, details a process for using Mercurial alongside/atop Subversion w/o them interacting in any way except for the file working directory. That's probably very similar to what you're looking to do.
The Perfarce extension should do what you want. I'm also experimenting with a similar setup, and I can pull & push to Perforce quite happily.
I must admit I am having issues with local config files and how they operate in this environment, but there's a couple of other answers here on SO that appear to address this.
I would recommend you give Perfarce a go first, before reverting to anything more manual.
I'm starting to use Mercurial on my web server (in this case MediaTemple's Grid). I've used SVN previously, though I'm not an expert of version control systems. I'm just needing a little help with clearing up some confusion with getting it set up optimally.
I have a 'data' folder which is outside the web server root and that the browser cannot access. It was recommended to me before to have my Mercurial repositories setup here, then I would clone from here locally on my computer. I would also have a 'domains' folder that is basically the web server root and inside there is my actual domains where my websites are actually served to the browser - these would need to be updated from the 'data' repositories too.
But with this in mind, after setting it up, it seems inefficient... I'm cloning to my local (that makes sense), adding, committing, pushing. That's fine... But then I'm then updating in my data repository folder and then updating in my domains folder to actually update my websites.
Surely, I don't actually need this 'data' folder for repositories? Wouldn't my actual live 'domains' folders be the main repositories themselves? So I'm cloning locally and updating from these? Please help me clear some confusions with all this (if you can).
It's strictly a matter of personal preference. Some folks make their live websites also the "master" repo, and some make it a clone of an elsewhere located repo. What you're doing right is serving your sites from directory in the repo, that's a good choice.
Some considerations as to whether you might want separate 'data' clones independent from the web root clones are:
do you want to have multiple heads in the same branch which might confuse the person updating the main repo?
do you want a repo to which people you don't trust with editing the live website can push so that a trusted admin (you?) does the push/pull from data to webroot?
One thing to note is that in the 'data' repo you can do hg update -r null which gets rid of the working copy (but keeps the repo!), so that the diskspace used is almost zero (assuming it's a clone of the webroot they'll share the same underlying files at the FS hardlink level).
I do have a repos (data) folder outside the website root, containing various repositories, and served through hgwebdir on a separate domain (hg.mywebsite.com).
However, my website’s repository I do store in the httpdocs directory of the main domain. I test on my local environment and then pushing my changes to the server will also publish them.
To achieve this I have this in my hgweb.config:
private/mywebsite = ../../../httpdocs
And this in that repository’s hgrc:
[hooks]
changegroup.update = hg update
This hook will update the working directory to the tip whenever changes are pushed. Of course I have also added a rule to the Apache configuration to ignore the .hg directory, and on the subdomain hg runs on, a rule to require authorisation for accesses to the private/ paths.
An alternative would be to instead host the repository together with the others, and then ‘hg archive’ into the httpdocs directory. A little more secure, a little slower, and as for convenience I would say it’s 50-50.
p.s. also adding a hook to forbid creation of remote branches may be a good idea, if people who might do push -f can access your repositories.
I'd like to set up a mercurial repository in a clearcase static view directory. My plan is to clone from that directory, do all my real work in a mercurial repo and then push my changes back to the shared Hg/Clearcase dir.
I'd like to hear general suggestions on how this might work best, but I foresee one specific problem: Clearcase locks files as read-only until they are checked-out. They way I'd like it to work is to set up a mercurial hook to checkout the file before the push is completed and roll-back the push if the checkout doesn't work.
Should I be looking at the pretxncommit hook? Or the pull hook? Also, I'm not quite clear on how to write the actual hooks either. I know the clearcase command, but I'm not sure how to contruct the hook to pass in the filename for each file in the changeset.
Suggestions?
The question I just answered 2 days ago: How to bridge git to ClearCase? can gives you an illustration of the process.
I like to take the ClearCase checkout/checkin step separate from the DVCS work:
I will unlock files as I need them within the DVCS repo (made directly within the snapshot view), and then update the snapshot view, which will tells me the "hijacked" files (which I can the easily checkout and checkin through the cleartool update GUI).
But if you have clone you DVCS repo somewhere else, and push it back to a local repo which is not the ClearCase snapshot view, what you could do is simply copy back the view.dat hidden file of your snapshot view at the root directory of the DVCS repo.
That simple file is enough to transform back the local repo in a ClearCase snashot view!
Then you make all the files read-only (except those modified after a certain date, i.e. the time when you started working), to avoid ClearCase considering all the files as hijacked.
The rest is similar to the first approach: update, checkout/checkin.