Is it
pull
update
merge
commit
push
? Or can you do the commit first?
I don't like the idea of pulling and merging without having a version of my local code backed up somewhere in case the merge explodes, but presumably you have to do the merge before you can do a push, because you can't have conflicts in the central repo. Not quite understanding this whole process yet; used to my nice simple SVN.
I recommend to always commit before pulling in changes to your working directory, unless you are 100% sure that your changes and the changes to be merged into your working directory will not conflict.
If you do an updating pull (hg pull; hg update, or shorter hg -u pull) and have any outstanding non-committed changes, any changes coming from outside will be combined with your changes. When conflicts happen, it might be difficult to decide how the merge result should look like, because you can't easily distinguish between your changes and the changes merged in.
When you did commit first, it is much easier to decide how the merge result should look like, because you can always look at both parents of the merge.
So, in effect it is:
hg commit
hg pull -u (if no merge necessary, go to 5)
hg merge
hg commit
hg push
Update: As Martin Geisler has pointed out, it is possible to get at the "original" changed version of a file using:
hg resolve --unmark the-file
hg resolve --tool internal:local the-file
or for all files at the same time:
hg resolve --unmark --all
hg resolve --tool internal:local -all
Still, I find the "commit first" system nicer. At the end, it is personal preference...
I don't know as there's a standard per se, but one of the ideas behind Mercurial is that you can commit as often as you like since it goes to your local repository. So you can commit to your heart's content as much as you like before you pull updates.
I tend not to commit very often, saving up for when I'm preparing to push, but that's me. I can see the utility of committing early and often. I do pull updates frequently as I work to cut down on merge fun.
One other thing I do is to keep a parallel clone of my working repo (cloned from the same repository as my working repo, not cloned from my working repo) so that I can check the original state of a file easily, and if need-be check in an out-of-band emergency fix or what-have-you without complicating my current change set.
Do edits
Commit
Goto 1 until satisfied
Pull
Merge & commit
Push if you want to.
Definitely commit before trying to do something complex like a merge. I don't think mercurial will allow you to merge before committing, but even if it did, what if the merge goes wrong. You have no pre-merge revision to go back to.
Commit early, commit often.
If you don't, you are missing out on a huge benefit of a DVCS.
but presumably you have to do the merge before you can do a push, because you can't have conflicts in the central repo
Wrong statement and poor understanding of distributed workflow and parallel development.
You can merge heads before push, but not have or must. Push can put any data to repo, if it needed and intended to be so
By default, push will not allow creation of new heads at the destination,
since multiple heads would make it unclear which head to use. In this
situation, it is recommended to pull and merge before pushing.
(NB: "recommended to pull and merge before" statement)
You can use commit-pull-merge, stash-pull-unstash-merge, perform fetch with modified WC and merge on the fly, don't merge heads at all or sporadically and push --force with +1 heads - there are not common rule for everybody. And any and every such workflow doesn't produce "conflicts in the central repo", but only different DAG.
Each point of divergence, which appear in case of existing your and other changeset from commmon parent in your (or even central) repo is a point of starting anonymous branches in Hg, which (technically) are absolutely legal, applicable and usual way. How they handled is defined by policy and agreement between developers, PM, QA-team and others
I, personally, prefer finish my task (in one or more amount of commits), after it pull and maybe merge, when it approved by development-policy
Related
I was surprised when coming back to Mercurial after using Git for quite a few years when I did an hg pull -u: Mercurial fetched the new patches, did a merge without conflict, but still asked for a commit.
Is there a way to automatically commit when a hg pull -u did not create any conflict?
Currently, the revlog is polluted with many "Merge..." commit messages, and I'd really prefer to not see them (although the merge itself should be kept in history in case the automated process makes the wrong decisions).
Nope, I don't think so. This is a fundamental difference between git and hg. Mercurial wants you to make sure the merge was correct, possibly by running your test suite, before committing.
If you don't like merge commits, maybe you should be rebasing your work instead of merging? It's common practice to keep history linear by rebasing feature branches instead of merging.
If you are rebasing a lot, it helps if you make use of the phase system by pushing WIP work to a non-publishing repository and then once code passes review and gets accepted, it gets rebased and then pushed to a publishing repository. You might also find the evolve extension useful, especially if you are working collaboratively with a team, as that will propagate the history editing operations between developers.
you could use an alias for that:
alias hg_pull='hg pull -u && hg commit -m "No Merge Conflict"'
Running hg_pull from your repo should do more or less what you wish.
If anything goes wrong at "hg pull -u" step, the commit is not triggered.
Let me know if something is unclear!
I've got my IDE set to commit locally every time I save anything. I'd ideally like to keep an uncensored record of my idiot fumblings for the rare occasions they may be useful. But most of the time it makes my history way to detailed.
I'd like to know a good strategy to keep that history but be able to ignore it most of the time. My IDE is running my own script every time I save, so I have control over that.
I'm pretty new to Mercurial, so a basic answer might be all I need here. But what are all the steps I should do when committing, merging, and reporting to be able to mostly ignore these automatic commits, but without actually squashing them? Or am I better off giving up and just squashing?
Related question about how to squash with highly rated comment suggesting it might be better to keep that history
Edit - My point here is that if Mercurial wants to keep all your history (which I agree with), it should let you filter that history to avoid seeing the stuff you might be tempted to squash. I would prefer not to squash, I'm just asking for help in a strategy to (in regular usage, though not quite always) make it look as much as possible like I did squash my history.
You want to keep a detailed history in your repo, but you want to have (and be able to export) an idealized history that only contains "reasonable" revsets, right? I can sympathize.
Solution 1: Use tags to mark interesting points in the history, and learn to ignore all the messy bits between them.
Solution 2: Use two branches and merge. Do your development in branch default, and keep a parallel branch release. (You could call it clean, but in effect you are managing releases). Whenever default is in a stable state that you want to checkpoint, switch to branch release and merge into it the current state of default-- in batches, if you wish. If you never commit anything directly to release, there will never be a merge conflict.
(original branch) --o--o--o--o--o--o--o (default)
\ \ \
r ... ... --r--------r (release)
Result: You can update to any revision of release and expect a functioning state. You can run hg log -r release and you will only see the chosen checkpoints. You can examine the full log to see how everything happened. Drawbacks: Because the release branch depends on default, you can't push it to another repo without bringing default with it. Also hg glog -r release will look weird because of the repeated merges.
Solution 3: Use named branches as above, but use the rebase extension instead of merging. It has an option to copy, rather than move outright, the rebased changesets; and it has an option --collapse that will convert a set of revisions into a single one. Whenever you have a set of revisions r1:tip you want to finalize, copy them from default to release as follows:
hg rebase --source r1 --dest release --keep --collapse
This pushes ONE revision at the head of release that is equivalent to the entire changeset from r1 to the head of default. The --keep option makes it a copy, not a destructive rewrite. The advantage is that the release branch looks just as you wanted: nice and clean, and you can push it without dragging the default branch with it. The disadvantage is that you cannot relate its stages to the revisions in default, so I'd recommend method 2 unless you really have to hide the intermediate revisions. (Also: it's not as easy to squash your history in multiple batches, since rebase will move/copy all descendants of the "source" revision.)
All of these require you to do some extra work. This is inevitable, since mercurial has no way of knowing which revsets you'd like to squash.
it should let you filter that history to avoid seeing the stuff you might be tempted to squash
Mercurial has the tools for this. If you just don't want see (in hg log, I suppose) - filter these changesets with revsets:
hg log -r "not desc('autosave')"
Or if you use TortoiseHg, just go View -> Filter Toolbar, and type in "not desc('autosave')" in the toolbar. Voila, your autosave entries are hidden from the main list.
If you actually do want to keep all the tiny changes from every Ctrl-S in the repo history and only have log show the subset of the important ones, you could always tag the "important" changesets and then alias log to log -r tagged(). Or you could use the same principle with some other revset descriptor, such as including the text 'autosave' in the auto-committed messages and using log -r keyword(autosave), which would show you all non-autosaved commits.
To accomplish your goal, at least as I'd approach it, I'd use the mq extension and auto-commit the patch queue repository on every save. Then when you've finished your "idiot fumblings" you can hg qfinish the patch as a single changeset that can be pushed. You should (as always!) keep the changes centered around a single concept or step (e.g. "fixing the save button"), but this will capture all the little steps it took to get you there.
You'd need to
hg qinit --mq once to initialze the patch queue repo (fyi: stored at \.hg\patches\)
hg qnew fixing-the-save-btn creates a patch
then every time you save in your IDE
hg qrefresh to update the patch
hg commit --mq to make the small changeset in the patch queue repo
and when you are done
hg qfinish fixing-the-save-btn converts the patch into a changeset to be pushed
This keeps your fumblings local to your repo complete with what was changed every time you saved, but only pushes a changeset when it is complete. You could also qpop or qpush to change which item you were working on.
If you were to try the squash method, you'd lose the fumbling history when you squashed the changesets down. Either that or you'd be stuck trying to migrate work to/from the 'real' repository, which, I can tell you from experience, you don't want to do. :)
I would suggest you to use branches. When you start a new feature, you create a new branch. You can commit as many and often as you like within that branch. When you are done, you merge the feature branch into your trunk. In this way, you basically separate the history into two categories: one in fine-grain (history in feature branches), and the other in coarse-grain (history in the trunk). You can easily look at either one of them using the command: hg log --branch <branch-name>.
If I have a bunch of uncommitted changes and want to set it aside while working on something else instead, and then later (f.i. after several days) come back to it and proceed working. What would be the easiest workflow to accomplish this? (So far I have only experience with Mercurial's basic functionality). My usual method was to create a new branch using clone, but there might be better ways.
You have a handful options:
Shelve the items. This saves the changes and removes them from the working directory so the branch can continue. It doesn't create a change-set.
hg shelve --all --name "UnfinishedChanges"
hg unshelve --name "UnfinishedChanges"
Update/Edit: Newer versions of mercurial may need to use
hg shelve -n "UnfinishedChanges"
hg unshelve "UnfinishedChanges"
You can still use --name as an alternative to -n, but mercurial doesn't seem to like --name anymore. Additionally, the --all is no longer required and mercurial will in fact freak out over it.
Patch queue the items using mq. This isn't too dissimilar to shelve in some respects, but behaves differently. The end result is the same, changes are removed and can be optionally re-applied later. When pushed, the patches are logical change-sets, when popped they are saved elsewhere and are not part of change-set history.
hg qnew "UnfinishedWork"
hg qrefresh
hg qpop
hg qpush "UnfinishedWork"
Commit them locally, update to the previous change-set and continue working and make use of anonymous branches (or multiple heads). If you then want the changes, you can merge heads. If you don't want the changes, you can strip the change-set.
hg commit -m"Commiting unfinished work in-line."
hg update -r<previous revision>
hg strip -r<revision of temporary commit>
Commit them to a named branch. The workflow then becomes the same as option 3 - merge or strip when you are ready.
hg branch "NewBranch"
hg commit -m"Commiting unfinished work to temporary named branch."
hg update <previous branch name>
Personally I use option 3 or 4 as I don't mind stripping change-sets or checking-in partial code (so long as that doesn't eventually get pushed). This can be used in conjunction with the new Phase stuff to hide your local change-sets from other users if need-be.
I also use the rebase command to move change-sets around to avoid merges where a merge wouldn't add anything to the history of the code. Merges I tend to save for activity between important branches (such as release branches), or activity from a longer-lived feature branch. There is also the histedit command I use for compressing change-sets where the "chattiness" of them reduces the value.
Patch queues are also a common mechanism for doing this, but they have stack semantics. You push and pop patches, but a patch that is "underneath" another patch in the stack requires that the one on top of it be pushed also.
Warning, as with all these options, if the files have more changes since the temporary changes that you've shelved / queued / branched, there will be merge resolution required when un-shelving / pushing / merging.
Personally, I don't like any of the answers posted so far:
I don't like clone branching because I like each project to have only one directory. Working on different directories at the same time completly messes the history of recent files of my editors. I always end up changing the wrong file. So I don't do that anymore.
I use shelve for quick fixes (just to move my uncommited changes to another branch, if I realize I'm at the wrong one). You are talking about days, no way I'd shelve something for days.
I think mq is too complicated for such an ordinary sittuation
I think the best way is to simply commit your changes, than you go back to the changeset before you start these changes and work from there. There are some minor issues, let me illustrate:
Let's say you have the changeset A. Than you start your changes. At this point you want set it aside for a while. First of all, commit your work:
hg ci -m "Working on new stuff"
If you want, you can add a bookmark to make it easier to come back later. I always create bookmarks to my anonymous branches.
hg bookmark new-stuff
Go back to the changeset before these modifications
hg update A
From here, you work and generate the changeset C. Now you have 2 heads (B and C), you'll be warned when you try to push. You can push only one branch by specifying the head of that branch:
hg push -r C
Or you can change the phase of the new-stuff branch to secret. Secret changesets won't be pushed.
hg phase -r new-stuff --secret --force
To keep local uncommited changes, easiest way for me is just to save them as a patch file.
hg diff > /tmp/`hg id -i`.patch
and when you need to return to previous state:
hg up <REV_WHERE_SAVED>
hg patch --no-commit /tmp/<REV_WHERE_SAVED>.patch
You can just clone your repo multiple times. I tend to have a root clone, then multiple childs from there. Example:
MyProject.Root
MyProject.BugFix1
MyProject.BugFix2
MyProject.FeatureChange1
MyProject.FeatureChange2
The 4 childs are all cloned from the root and push/pull to/from the root. The root then push/pulls from the master repo on the network/internet somewhere. The root acts as your sort of personal staging area.
So in your case, you'd just clone up a new repo and start working. Leave your 'shelved' work alone in the other repo. It's that simple.
The only downside is disk space usage, but if that were a concern you'd not be using DVCS at all anyway ;) Oh and it does kind of pollute your Visual Studio "recent projects" list, but what the hey.
[Edit following comments] :-
To conclude then... what you're doing is completely fine and normal. I would argue it is the best possible way to work when the following are true: 1) it is short-lived 2) you don't need to collaborate with other developers 3) the changes don't need to leave your PC until commit/push time.
I faced today my first mercurial problem. I was in my repo, I modified a file and I did a
hg commit
hg pull
followed by
hg update
hg rollback
to repair what I've done, (but actually I didn't push anything)
The problem is that when I did the pull (that I should do before the commit, the head changed and so hg heads looks like :
- Modif from yesterday
- My modif
- Modif from last week
and now I see that someone also did another modification (via the http interface). What should I do to repair my local repo, (if possible modifying my summary) and push it after the 2 others modifications.
Thanks a lot. Quiet confusing, was easier on my "one-man" repo..
Your local repo doesn't need "repairing". This is a very standard case that you will see often if you use Mercurial a lot.
The issue is multiple heads.
You can either merge your heads, assuming your working directory is your version and there is only the other head:
hg merge
This will result in a merge changeset (same as if you were merging across branches).
Or you can enable the rebase extension to re-base your version onto the tip of the branch (the other head):
hg rebase --source<YourVersionNumber> --dest<TipVersionNumber>
This will not result in a merge changeset, and will simply transplant your changes on top of the changeset you specify as if they were born of that changeset all along (hence rebase or "new"basing).
Multiple heads is a funny sort of inner-branch branching... you can continue checking stuff in against your own head and change between heads using hg update. We block multiple heads per branch on our server, so our push would fail. I'd advise keeping multiple heads local as they are less clear-cut than branches.
I tend to work with Mercurial in one of two ways:
If the work is large in scale I will branch it off and follow Continuous Integration practices (constantly merging the main branch into my own etc). I then re-merge back into main when I am happy with the end result.
If the work is small in scale I will simply work against main branch and "merge" heads every so often. I say "merge" as I usually use rebase. Re-basing works great if the changes are simple and conflicts are unlikely.
My hard and fast rule: if I can't use rebase I put it on a branch born of main.
I'm in my branch, and I do this:
hg incoming /path/to/baseline
And I get a few changesets in the output.
Now do I just merge to pull in the changsets to my branch?
hg merge /path/to/baseline
Will my history show what was merged?
As long as I didn't touch those files, it will be automatic right?
You should really try all this out yourself! Make a couple of test repositories:
hg init main
hg clone main clone
and then experiment away. It's easy and safe since you're only playing around on your own machine. (This is actually what happens "behind the scenes" when you ask a question here: I try to make sure that the advice I give really works, so I normally have to run a few tests on a new repository to double-check.)
If you ran the tests, you would see that
You cannot give hg merge a path name (or URL) as argument. It takes a revision as the only argument. You need to hg pull /path/to/baseline to copy the changesets into your local repository and then hg merge.
The history will indeed show what was merged. A merge becomes a merge commit in Mercurial. That is a changeset with two ancestor changesets — both lines of development leading up to the merge are still in the repository.
Merges are without conflicts ("automatic") if the changes made in the two branhces don't overlap. If you edit different files in the two branches then there's certainly no overlap. But you can also edit different regions within the same file and still have a merge without conflicts.
There is a fine tutorial on the wiki and I've also written a beginners guide. I hope that helps.