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.
Related
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'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>.
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
What's the difference between a tag and a bookmark in Mercurial? I can't seem to find any discussion of how the two differ.
Lets consider your repository as a "choose your own adventure books", with different points of view.
A tag is like a stamp that the editor put on your manuscript to say "ok, we keep a trace of your current work, in case shit happens."
A named branch would be a chapter. You have to choose at one point which chapter you'll have to write, and they are there to stay. Some will merge back, some will end (sorry, you died.)
A bookmark is, well, a bookmark. It follows you while you're reading (committing) the book. It helps you to keep tracks of "what you were reading at that time", so you can remove them, move them to a different "chapter". When you share the book (push), you usually don't share your bookmarks, unless you explicitly want to. So you usually use them on anonymous branches because their life cycle is shorter than named branches.
Bookmarks are used when you want a mnemonic (foo_feature) that points to a changing commit id as your work progresses. They're more light-weight that regular Mercurial branches, and somewhat similar to the way git branches work.
Tags generally point to fixed commit ids. They can be reassigned manually, but this is discouraged.
There are actually five concepts to play with:
tags
local tags
bookmarks
lightweight branches
named branches
Lightweight branches are what happens if you just use mercurial. Your repository history forks and sometimes merges as you change things and move around your history.
The other four are ways of annotating lightweight branches and the changesets that make them up.
named branches and tags are mercurial-only concepts where the branch names and tags actually get recorded in the repository by making more commits to the repository. They'll tend to propagate to other repositories in ways which are not necessarily obvious.
local tags and bookmarks are much more like what git calls tags and branches. They're metadata rather than being mixed in with the versioned objects. So they're not represented as part of the repository history. They tend to be local to your repository, and won't propagate unless you propagate them deliberately.
At least I think that's how they all work. After about twelve months of using mercurial daily I haven't really got to grips with its model(s). If anyone knows better than me then feel free to edit this answer so it's correct.
How I actually use these things in practice.
I'm working on a single shared repository with about 20 other people. I make many experiments and lightweight branches in my own private repository, which never get pushed to our main central repository. Occasionally once an experiment has worked out I'll modify the main line and push a changeset into the central repository, from which it will find its way to everyone else's machine.
I'll occasionally push some changesets to a co-worker if they're one of the people who's comfy with how mercurial works. But several people are a bit scared of it and prefer if I send them diffs that they can apply with patch.
For experiments I expect to be short lived and private, I just let lightweight branches happen where they may, and remember what's going on. If I feel my memory slipping about a twig that's been around for a bit, I bookmark it.
I use local tags to mark revisions I might like to come back to one day. They make interesting past states easier to find.
I myself almost never make non-local tags or named branches (except by accident, and I destroy them if I do). But our release people do. Our released major versions all have their own named branches off from the main line, and minor versions have tags on those branches. That ensures that these important branches and tags look the same to everyone.
Again, I've no idea whether this is how one's supposed to use mercurial, but it seems to be a model that works well for our size of team.
If three or four of us wanted to collaborate on an experiment, that would probably be worth a named branch, which we'd probably share between ourselves but not push to the central repo. I don't know how well that would work out!
The biggest difference is that a bookmark is automatically moved forward when you commit. Here's an example:
hg init
..edit a file..
hg commit -m 'my commit' # creates revision 0
hg tag -r 0 mytag # creates revision 1
hg bookmark -r 0 mybookmark # doesn't create a revision
hg update 0 # get back to r0
..edit a file..
hg commit -m 'another commit' # creates revision 2
At that point mytag is still pointing to revision 0 and mybookmark is now pointing at revision 2. Also the tagging created a changeset and the bookmark didn't.
Also, of course, the bookmark created a revisio
I've just got a problem with hg push command. What I did - Firstly I created 2 branches hot-fix-1 and hot-fix-2 made some changes in each branche, merged it back to default and closed those branches with the command:
hg commit --close-branch
If I start hg branches I have the following output:
default 29:e62a2c57b17c
hg branches -c gives me:
default 29:e62a2c57b17c
hot-fix-2 27:42f7bf715392 (closed)
hot-fix-1 26:dd98f50934b0 (closed)
Thus hot-fix-* branches seems to be closed. However if I try to push the changes I have the next error message:
pushing to /Users/user1/projects/mercurial/mytag
searching for changes
abort: push creates new remote branches: hot-fix-1, hot-fix-2!
(use 'hg push --new-branch' to create new remote branches)
and it does not matter which command I use hg push -b . or hg push -b default
So the question is how I can push those changes to repository without creating new branches.
P.S I used to work with git and was hoping that similar branching model can be used in Mercurial. Thanks
First, as many others have pointed out, using a named branch for short lived work is not a recommended practice. Named branches are predominantly for long lived features, or for release management.
Given that you are in this situation, there are a few options available. All of them involve modifying history (as you're obviously trying to change something you've done).
One is to just push the branches as is, learn from the experience, and move on. If the rest of the team is fine with this, then it's a case of adding --new-branch to your push command.
If the rest of the team, or you, really want the history to be clean, then you'll need to dig deeper.
If you aren't pushing, then definitely make a clone of your current repo. This way you have a copy of the original work to fall back on.
I see 2 main approaches here. Strip off the merges and rebase your branches onto default. This will get rid of the named branches or graft/transplant your changes. Both will be the same end result, but the implementation is slightly different.
If you merely want to use graft, that is now a built-in function starting with HG 2.0. It replaces the transplant plugin, and is much nicer to work with as it uses your usual merge tool if there are conflicts.
To use it, update to the default branch. Then, use the command:
hg graft -D "2085::2093 and not 2091"
the string after -D is an hg revision selection query. In your case, you'd likely only need '{start}::{end}' where start is the changeset at the start of the branch, and end is the end changeset of the branch (ignoring the merge).
If you did several merges, you'd have to pick and choose the changesets more precisely.
The other option is to strip the final merges, and use the rebase command that is part of the mq plugin.
You'll have to strip your merge changesets to get rid of them, and then update to the tip of the branch you want to keep. Select the start of the first named branch, and do a rebase. This will change the parentage of the branch (if you're familiar with Git, then this is very much like it's rebase).
Then repeat for the second branch. You should now have one long branch with the name default.
Just do the:
hg push --new-branch
It will send over those branches, but they'll be closed on the receiving end too, so no one should be bothered.
See my comment on the question for why Named Branches are best saved for long-lived entities like 'stable' and anonymous branches, bookmarks, or clones are more suitable for short lived things like hot-fixes and new features.
Your hot-fix changes were made on branches. Regardless of whether the branch is active or closed, it does exist.
To push the changes to the server (without rewriting history), you must use the --new-branch option (e.g. hg push --new-branch`).
Since you merged the branches into default, there will still only be one head (as you have already seen in your local repo).
If you really can't live with pushing the branches to the server, then you must rewrite your local history as suggested in Mikezx6r's answer.
In addition to the methods he mentioned, you can also import the changesets into a patch queue and apply them to the tip of your default.