I have been happily using HgSubversion for awhile and today I forgot to add the --svn to the rebase command.
Now i get the dreaded unknown revision ''
Is there a way to recover from this?
You should be able to do "hg svn rebuildmeta" and then do "hg pull" and have it repair things.
Note: this is untested, so I'd work on a duplicate of the local repo in case it screws things up. My memory of the code suggests this will work.
I'd try using the transplant extension to fix this:
Re-clone the SVN repository to a new local repository.
Examine the history of the original repository and note which changes need moving
Transplant the changes from the old repository to the new repository
For example - fixing an hgsubversion repo called project:
> hg clone svn+http://svnrepo/project project-tmp
Then examine the log of your original project folder and do the following from the project-tmp folder:
> hg transplant -s ../project 1234
Where 1234 is the revision that you want to move over. Repeat this until all your revisions are copied.
When you're done you should be able to start using the new folder in place of the old folder by re-pulling from SVN, rebasing your changes and push them back (don't forget --svn)
Related
I'm using TortoiseHg with an SVN repository using the hgsubversion extension.
I like to use hg pull --rebase when I pull, to mirror what SVN does on svn update. Because I'm using hgsubversion, I will need to rebase anyway before I push, so I may as well do it in one step.
Additionally, hg push will automatically do a rebase internally, there is no way around that.
My difficulty is that hg rebase will refuse to work if I have any uncommitted changes. So to push or pull from SVN I always need to hg shelve first and then remember to do hg unshelve after. This can get really annoying and I always forget.
Ideally I'd like to tell TortoiseHg to do this for me automatically, but I'd settle for a command-line alias. I tried putting an alias like svnpull = !hg shelve && hg pull --rebase && hg unshelve in my config as suggested here but I get an error "user: abort: response expected" instead of being asked for my password. What can I do to avoid manually shelve/unshelve steps every time I interact with the central repository?
I can't actually commit my changes locally and just avoid pushing the local change, because hgsubversion doesn't respect the secret phase and hgsubversion doesn't support designating a revision to push. So unfortunately none of the answers to this similar question will work for me. And anyway I'd need manual steps to arrange for my "local only" changeset to always be on the tip.
The solution was to use repository hooks. I added this to my .hg/hgrc config file:
[hooks]
pre-pull = hg shelve
post-pull = hg unshelve
pre-push = hg shelve
post-push = hg unshelve
Don't enter password manually, automate it with keyring (questionable on Windows) or using [auth] section of in project's .hgrc
Sample from my local hg-repo for remote SVN-backend
[auth]
assembla.prefix = https://subversion.assembla.com
assembla.username = USER
assembla.password = PASSWORD
and entering password not needed anymore
Another idea: you haven't push immediatelly your WIP, yes? You have only to have it on top of "other" work, true? You can in this case commit, rebase, and continue to work with the same tip, modifying it with commit --amend
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.
I want to completely delete a Mercurial commit as if it was never entered in the repository and move back to my prior commit.
Is this possible?
If it was your last commit and you haven't pushed it anywhere, you can do that with rollback. Otherwise, no. Not really. Time to change your passwords.
Edit: It has been pointed out that you can clone from an older revision and merge in the changes you want to keep. That's also true, unless you have pushed it to a repo you don't control. Once you push, your data is very likely to be very hard to get back.
You can try to remove mq info about your commit.
For this you need to go File->Settings->Extensions.
There check mq and restart gui.
After that just right click on unneeded commit and
ModifyHistory->Strip
To edit the history I would use the Histedit Extension extension.
hg histedit 45:c3a3a271d11c
However keep in mind this only makes sense in a situation where you have not yet pushed the commits to the public repository, you own the public repository and/or you can account for all the clones out there. If you receive the following error:
abort: can't rebase immutable changeset 43ab8134e7af
It means that Mecurial thinks this is a public changeset (see phases) that has already been pushed - you can force it to be a draft again doing:
hg phase -f -d 45:c3a3a271d11c
I encounter this fairly often. I make a commit and then pull to push. But then there is something incoming that makes my newly made commit unnecessary. A plain hg rollback isn't enough because it only undoes the pull...
This is the thing to do:
hg strip <rev>
Things are painless when you don't push your changesets anywhere.
If it's more than one commit and/or you already pushed it somewhere else, you can clone your repository and specify the last changeset that should be cloned.
See my answer here how to do this:
Mercurial: Fix a borked history
If you only committed locally and didn't push, you can just create a clone locally (as described in my link) and you're done.
If you already pushed to some remote repository, you would have to replace that with your clone.
Of course it depends if you are able (or allowed) to do this.
You can use "hg backout" to do a reverse merge basically. All options are discussed in the freely available book "Mercurial: The Definitive Guide":
http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/finding-and-fixing-mistakes.html
If using tortoise you can use modify history > strip...
Yes. Unless I am mistaken, as of v2.3 (rel. 2012/08/01) you can use the HisteditExtension with a drop command to drop a commit, along with strip or backout to remove changes.
A simple Google search on the feature: https://www.google.com/webhp#q=histedit+drop
In 2022 I do use evolve extension. It is one of the best extensions for this purpose.
To prune unwanted changeset, if you for example did a quick hack to get the code working:
$ echo 'debug hack' >> file1.c
$ hg commit -m 'debug hack'
Now you have a proper patch you can do hg prune .:
$ hg prune .
1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
working directory is now at 2a39221aaebb
1 changesets pruned
If you push the change to the remote repository you will find only obsolescence markers:
$ hg push
searching for changes
no changes found
remote: 1 new obsolescence markers
To check the changes to your local repo you can pull from the remote one:
$ hg pull
pulling from ssh://userid#server/repo
searching for changes
no changes found
I have a project where I'm using Bitbucket as my HG server, but I've recently discovered that as a lone developer I can use Fogbugz/Kiln for free. I want to move my files into Kiln but I don't want to lose my history. I'm sure there's a dead-stupid easy way to do it, but I just don't know. How do I do this?
Thanks!
Create the new project repo and do the following with your current copy of the original repo: hg push new-repo-path.
Then you use the new path in the future. You can delete the bitbucket repo.
With Mercurial, all history is in every copy of the repository, including your local copies.
Since you are already using Mercurial. I was just curious, shouldn't cloning your repository on Fogbugz/Kiln be sufficient.
hg clone "BitBucket Repo ..."
Of course, this won't copy your per-repository hgrc file. You will need to do that separately.
Another approach is to use bundle.
hg bundle --all bitbucket.bundle
hg clone bitbucket.bundle my_repo
Third approach is to push or pull from bitbucket repo to fogbugz repo.
Setting defaults
See: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/TipsAndTricks.
Reproducing it here:
It is possible to store a default push URL that will be used when you type just 'hg push'. Edit hgrc and add something like:
[paths]
default-push = ssh://hg#example.com/path
The other answers have already explained that right after creating a new empty repository, you can push your changes into it with hg push http://example.com/hg/newrepo. (Note that once you have pushed some changes into it, it will only accept changes from related repositories in the future.)
What you also seem to be wondering about also is how to then configure your local repository to push to that location by default, without needing to specify the URL every time. You can do that by editing the default location in the .hg\hgrc file of your repository. It is a text file that you can open with notepad or any other text editor.