I'm an ex SVN user trying to work out the best way to do branched development in hg. My project is fairly new currently has no branches. A friend of mine suggested that making a local clone of the repos. then working in that was better than using a named branch.
So if I use this model, would the workflow be:
[say original project has been cloned to be in c:\projects\sk\tracker]
hg clone https:[url of repos] tracker_featurex [to be issued from c:\projects\sk]
change to subdir tracker_featurex
checkin and push as per normal
[optional, how do I pull changes from the main repos. into this one?]
[final step, how do I get changes from this clone back into the main trunk?]
I need help on whether this workflow is correct and what the exact commands would be for the two steps in the [] braces.
Thanks a great deal to anyone who can help,
Fred
I would recommend you take a look at Steve Losh's post on branching in Mercurial: http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/
He goes over various types of branches (clones, bookmarks, named branches, anonymous branches) as well as the commands you would run for each. There are pros and cons to all of them. Local clones are ok if you are the only developer but they are not as useful in a workflow where more than one developer needs to work on a branch. The claim that clones are universally better than named branches is a myth. You should find a branching model that fits your workflow.
Update:
If you do want to do local clones you can move you changes using hg push from the new workspace (Assuming you have a Projects folder and a repo named test):
Projects> hg clone test test-new-feature
Projects> cd test-new-feature
Projects/test-new-feature> <do some work>
Projects/test-new-feature> hg commit -m "Work is done."
Projects/test> <Might need a pull/merge here>
Projects/test-new-feature> hg push
If there are changes in the test repo you need to pull/merge them before pushing.
You can also hg pull from the original workspace:
Projects> hg clone test test-new-feature
Projects> cd test-new-feature
Projects/test-new-feature> <do some work>
Projects/test-new-feature> hg commit -m "Work is done."
Projects/test-new-feature> cd ../test
Projects/test> hg pull ../test-new-feature
This might create multiple heads in the test repo and you would need to merge/commit.
Projects/test> hg merge
Projects/test> hg commit -m "Merged in new-feature."
Either are good options. I might recommend pulling rather than pushing. The main difference to me is the location of the merge step. I think pulling from the feature repo makes the history a little more readable.
I am fledgling to Hg, so take what I say with a word of caution :-)
I love having named branches, but use them very judiciously! There are downsides to the approach I use below, but it works well for my current environment which is a small shop. I don't mind preserving history forever and I'm not concerned with reducing the number of commits (but Mq/record/etc can address this latter bit).
This is how I use branches in the code I work on:
Default branch.
This is built on the build server.
This should only have one head.
This should always compile.
This should always be the "best effort" at completing bugs/features.
"Workbench" branch.
This can have multiple heads.
Anonymous branches are encouraged. Shared bookmarks used to "name" active anonymous branches.
The state should be almost always compilable, but it is not a requirement.
Represents "work in progress".
Okay, so this is what my process might look like this: (I've excluded pull/push/merge-theirs steps).
I get a bug report in.
I switch to "workbench" tip (or whatever revision is appropriate).
I fix the bug, possibly committing several times. (I really should learn to use queues or record, etc.)
(If I am interrupted in the above process, e.g. have to work on a different bug, or am otherwise side-tracked I will create a new head above where #2, or as appropriate. I may give the current anonymous branch tip a name with a bookmark, or I may not.)
Once complete, I merge the relevant branch/changes into "default" and hopefully the build server still loves me :-)
I think the best thing to do is forget about how branches in SVN worked. They are not liked named branches at all and anyone who says otherwise is latching onto the fact they both have "names" and not much more. Every branch in Hg is part of a "named branch" (that is, has a name associated with it, be it "default" or "workbench" or otherwise). But it doesn't matter, except for organization: a branch is a branch and it doesn't matter if it's referring to the "tip" of an anonymous branch or the tip of the only head (really an anonymous branch itself) in a named branch.
Try a few things, use what works best :)
making a local clone of the repos. then working in that was better than using a named branch.
Overly dramatic and ambitious statement in common. When you clone-per-feature, you have only one branch (named branch) per repo, but nothing more (practically, briefly speaking).
When feature is finished, you have to "push to parent"|"pull from clone" in order to return changes back. At this stage, if some work was done in parent repo after clone, anonymous branch will appear (+1 head) and merge is a must (same as for work in named brach in one repo), but, it named brach can tells something fast later (you use good names, isn't it?), anonymous branch tells almost nothing without additional tricks (bookmarks, f.e). Part of my repo below as example of work in clone with intermediate pulls and must-merges after pulls/ (sorry, russian commit-messages) and even I can't recall now, why I had repo cloned for editorials - maybe I just play with Clones-Workflow
Related
I'm fairly new to version control in teams. So far I've mostly used it solo.
I've read that the following workflow is recommended:
Commit locally, pull master, merge master into my branch, merge my
branch into master, push. Several times a week or even day
So that's what I tried to do. However, when I was done with my feature, and tried to push, tortoise hg told me, that this would create new remote heads.
hg help push tells me about two options:
Merge first: Did that
Use -f: I know enough not to do that.
I think I understand the concept of rebasing - which I don't think applies here, since I'm the only one who did anything in this commit tree. Of course I've pulled.
So my question is: How can I resolve this specific situation?
Also, recommendations for where to learn proper version control workflow would be nice. Everything I find tells me what the commands are, but I've failed to find clear instructions on when to use them.
I've added a picture of the project. Commit 147 was mine, and I could push it just fine. All oher commits are also made by me.
hg reports a "head" for every named branch. In your screenshot, you are needing to push rev 154, which is the head of your kjeld branch. It is an outgoing changeset because you are pushing rev 155 and you must therefore push 155's entire history as well. Others will get that branch when they pull your changes and will have a head on their version of kjeld (note that it will most likely not be numbered 154 since those numbers are repo specific). You will be fine though since that head is a close-branch changeset so it will not appear in their default list for hg heads and hg branches.
One way to avoid your current issue is to use bookmarks to temporarily note what that head represents e.g. issue-45, big-feature-2, etc. and only push when merged into mainline development.
For us, we set up a "private" repo for each dev on the server where they store/backup work in progress. It is expected that there are multiple heads, dead branches, and other gunk in these "private" repos. The dev repo, however, only ever has a single head and must pass the build and build tests.
In response to your comment about your "private" branch: When you push your tip you will also push your branch named kjeld. Others who want to work on that code must pull it to get the tip of your development. It will not be a "private" branch.
Requirement
I'd like to abandon a line of development on the default branch, winding back to a revision from about 15 change sets back, and have default proceed from there.
My setup
This is a solo development project with one other guy testing infrequently. I push (frequently) to bitbucket for backups and sharing with the tester. Several of the changes I want to abandon are pushed to BitBucket.
Options
Any of these would be fine…
The abandoned change sets to continue to exist in the repo. It would be nice if they could live on their own branch abandoned-experiment-1, say, that I can close and ignore, but this would need them to move on to a retrospectively created branch (which seems like it would be an awesome feature?).
Some kind of merge to happen where I add a new revision to default that is the rollback to the revision I want to continue from.
The change sets to be destroyed, but I suspect there's no way to achieve that without replacing the BitBucket repo and my tester's repo, which I'm not keen on.
I'm not too sure how to evaluate which options are possible, which is best, or whether there are other, better options. I'm also not sure how to actually proceed with the repo update!
Thank you.
You do have several options (Note that I'm assuming that you are dispensing with all changes in the 15 or so revisions and not trying to keep small bits of them):
Easiest is kinda #2: You can close anonymous branches just like named branches; Tag the tip first with abandoned-development if you wish; hg update to the point you wish to continue from; and continue to code as normal. (You may need to create the new head for new development before you can close the old one. I haven't tested it yet.)
Regarding #3: Based on my cursory read, it does appear that bitbucket has a strip command. If you (both locally and on bitbucket) and your tester strip the offending changesets, you can carry on your merry way and pretend like they never existed.
Achieving #1: If you are definitely set on getting them to a named branch, you could strip them at the remote repos and then hg rebase them onto a new branch locally and then close that branch.
Personally, I try not to mess with history when I can avoid it, so I'd go with the easiest.
Mercurial now has (yet experimental) support for changeset evolution. That is you are able to abandon or rebase already pushed changesets. Internally this works by hiding obsolete changesets (i.e. practically nothing is stripped, only new replacement revisions are added to the history, that is why it works across multiple clones).
To extend #Edward's suggestions, you could also update to the last good revision, continue to commit from there and then merge in the head of the bad changesets using a null-merge:
hg up <good-revision>
... work ... commit ...
hg merge <head-of-bad-revisions>
hg revert --all -r .
hg commit -m 'null-merge of abandoned changesets'
This may be what you thought of as option 2.
I really like the Hg Flow for Mercurial repositories. we are currently using Bitbucket, and in each product multiple developers are working. basically they can work as below:
a team might work on a single feature.
another team might work on a release/hot fix.
So do i keep the "develop" branch in BitBucket or local repositories. and how about feature branches, should i push them to the central repository and remove when required. i assume we should do so right?
Thanks
I personally neither use git flow or hg flow as tools, but I do use some of the methods for my own projects (manually).
Before going into detail, you always need to provide branches in the main/bitbucket repository when multiple people need to merge or branch from them.
This definately includes "develop" and probably also features/fixes multiple people need to work on (unless you have another repository or method to exchange branches/commits between them)
The difference between using git and mercurial/hg is relevant here, since the branching models are quite different.
See A Guide to Branching in Mercurial for details. Using hg bookmarks would be quite similar to what git does with branches, but there is no full support for the bookmark branching model on BitBucket (see this ticket).
hg flow (the tool) uses named branches. In contrast to git branches, these are not at all light-weight, but permanent and global (they can at least be closed now).
This means whenever any commit created on any (named) branch other than "default" is pushed to bitbucket (even after merging) this will create the branch in the bitbucket repository.
So you don't have any other choice than keeping all branches in the main repository.
However, You can decide when to push and when to close these.
I would advise using hg push -r to push only the branches/heads you want to push and only pushing these when they are either needed by somebody else or finished and merged.
Branches should be closed as soon they are not needed anymore. (This is probably done by hg flow automatically)
You should close branches locally whenever possible. This way they might not even appear in the bitbucket interface. Some might reach the bitbucket repository only in closed state (which hides them from the interface).
Obviously you should often push any branches multiple people need to merge from.
In my understanding of the workflow the "develop" branch is always exactly one branch per project that should be pushed frequently (after local testing).
In case you are either not using hg-flow or named branches things are a bit different.
Both, using forks/clones or bookmarks as a branching method doesn't generate permanent or necessarily global branches.
Like mentioned above, you can't use bookmarks (reliably) when you also want to use bitbucket pull requests. You have to push bookmarks separately. A normal push will only update (a head of) the branch so you might miss commits from other team members when marging later. Hg will tell you when a new head is created. In that case you might want to merge the branch with the remote bookmark into your branch before pushing.
When using forks as branches it works a bit like with bookmarks, but bitbucket has full support for that. You need to have a new fork on bitbucket for every branch.
You naturally only want to create extra forks if you need different people to work on it and you don't have other means of commit exchange for them. You will need at least a separate "develop" repository then.
I personally wouldn't use the full "flow" with hg on bitbucket.
For my projects the "develop" branch is the same as master/default, since I don't roll out releases with git (other than development builds, that wouldn't use the release branch anyways). I don't need a separate "production" branch, since tags can mostly be used for production usage.
I also don't create a separate "release-preparation" branch. There is only a point in time when I only apply bugfixes on develop and stop merging features. That obviously won't work when you need to work at the same time on features that are dependendant on features not to be released in the next release.
Always using the full "git flow" is easy because git branching is easy and light-weight.
Depending on the branching model you use and how supportive the other tools are,
using the full "hg flow" might not be "worth it".
The hg guide actually discourages use of named branches for short-lived branches.
See Feature separation through named branches.
The "easy" branching concept promoted in the guide is forking/cloning. Bookmarks would be the natural way to translate git flow if the tool/bitbucket support would be better (and bookmarks longer a core hg feature).
Disclaimer:
I prefer git when I can choose. I do use hg, but not as my personal choice.
You also might have considered most of this, but since you didn't state any of these details and accept an answer (in the comments) that is quite different to what you are asking, I wanted to elaborate a bit.
Edit:
To follow-up on the comments:
I think hg bookmarks are comparable to git branches because both are just movable pointers to commits.
The main difference is, that when you delete a branch in git, the commits are possibly lost (when not part of other branches or pointed to in a another branch before they are garbage collected). When you delete a bookmark in hg, then the commits are still part of the repository (part of the (named or default) branch) unless manually stripped.
Anonymous heads are related, but only as something the bookmarks point to. Without bookmarks pointing to them the anonymous heads are not usable as a branch to work with (for more than just a local merge) and share. When you have anonymous heads in a repository you don't know what they are supposed to be or where they came from, unless you remember or have other clues. In my eyes anonymous heads are only a workaround for late implementation of bookmarks and no good implementation of remotes/remote heads.
Named branches are rather unrelated, as the only thing they have in common with git branches is having a name. They are light-weight in comparision to cloning the whole repository (forking as branch model), but not in terms of "you can't get rid of them". They are permanent.
Most places tell you not to use named branches unless you have a very good reason or it is a long-running branch.
Is it possible to forcibly create new remote head when pushing ?
Suppose I have done some local commits on branch "default" then pulled and merged from remote.
Now, I would like to push my commits to remote creating new head and a bookmark but preserve existing remote head and tip - ie. my coworkers should not get my changes yet when doing hg fetch.
Basically this should be a short lived branch (thus not a named branch) for purpose of backup and code review by other before being fully merged into "main" head of default branch.
I've tried --new-branch but it didn't help - no new head was created and remote tip moved to my head.
You can use the --force option to force the creation of a new head.
The --new-branch option is used for named branch, in your case, we are talking of anonymous branching.
The reason why the "tip is moved" is because you merged the changeset recently pulled. Doing that, there's no way to do what you want.
You should just pull the new changes from the remote, and force push everything without merging, this will create a new head (called an anonymous branch), which can later be merged to the default branch by you or someone else after the code review.
You can also use a second repository to push your changes, but this is a totally different workflow.
You cannot preserve tip when you push: it is a pseudo-tag that always points to the newest changeset in a repository. The concept of tip is deprecated in Mercurial because tip can change meaning more or less randomly depending on the order of pushes — as you've seen.
The only way to create a new head is to, well, create it :-) By this I mean that you need two heads — one with your changes and one with the main code you want the colleges to pull and merge with. With only a single head (the one you got after running hg merge) there's no way to signal to the colleges that they shouldn't use it.
A much better approach is to use a separate repository on the server. Go to your repository management software and create a fork for your changes. Then push into that and tell your colleges to review it. They'll pull from your clone and look the changes over. If they like them, then they can merge with the main code and push to the normal repo. If they don't like the changes, then they can throw away their local clone, strip the changesets, or maybe just rollback the pull.
My solution to this issue is to use a previous revision for the start of the bookmark, if there is none or you just do not want to, you can make a dummy commit (like a small change to a README file, etc.) and bookmark the revision before that.
I think hg bookmarks need a lot of fine tuning before they become like git branches, but the process I describe is pretty much what is explained in the mercurial bookmarks kick starter.
For example, if your currently at revision 250.
echo >>README
hg ci -m "enabling bookmark branch_xyz"
hg book my-tip # optional but nice to have
hg book -r 250 branch_xyz
hg up branch_xyz
# hack ... hack hack
hg ci -m "awesome feature xyz (in progress)"
hg push -fB branch_xyz
now this bookmark lives on the server for others to work with ... but can be easily pruned later
I decide to start an experiment in a branch
[default] $ hg branch experiment
[experiment] $ [... some commits ...]
Aargh! does not work! I want to throw it away.
[experiment] $ hg commit -m "did not work; closing ..." --close-branch
[experiment] $ hg update default
To get the real tip back -
[default] $ [... some commits ...]
[default] $ hg push
Is this a correct workflow to destroy an experimental branch?
You've got two fine answers on how to undo your branch, but the bigger point is don't use named branches for temporary concepts. Named branches are for long lived entities like 'development' and 'stable'. For features, expiriments, etc. you want either clones, bookmarks, or anonymous branches. All three are contrasted with named branches in this excellent article by Steve Losh:
http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/
You can see similar advice from the Mercurial project here:
https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/StandardBranching
The Mercurial wiki covers all the options for Pruning Dead Branches. Briefly, these options include:
Closing the branch (as done in your original post)
Create a new clone that does not include the dead branch
Use a no-op merge
Use the strip command that is bundled with the mq extension
Closing a branch will leave it in the repository, and the closed branch will be pushed with other changesets next time you do a push.
If you don't want this to happen, and your branch is local, just strip it.
On the other hand, if you have already pushed the experimental branch, stripping it won't help, so you can either close it or do a dummy merge (or both).
In my opinion, you should just close the branch and forget about it.
In the long run, there's no harm in a "dead" branch being present in the repository. Any given branch is almost certainly tiny in comparison to the contents of your repository and any additional "noise" created by the additional changesets is going to fade into the past relatively quickly.
However, by not worrying about cleaning up the branch, you achieve two things:
You don't have to deal with any of the potential issues associated with altering history in a DVCS.
(More importantly) You have a permanent record of your attempt.
That second point is key -- you can actually make use of what you learned if the branch is still around: any fellow developers can learn from it; you can go back and try again if you learn something else; you can prevent trying the same thing again by seeing this branch in history.
A lot of developers have a hard time with keeping history that isn't "pristine" in their DVCS, especially when they recently came from a centralized VCS.* Over time, I've come to realize that there's nothing bad or wrong about that "other" history and in fact it can turn out to be remarkably useful if kept around.
*I'm not necessarily implying that you fall into either of these camps, just making an observation.