I accidentally merged a branch into a workspace with applied patches.
How do I clean up this mess? Do I have to clean the merge (hg up -C) or is there some way to save my merge?
Mercurial 1.9.1, TortoiseHg 2.1.2
I reproduced the basis of the situation with these commands on a fresh repo:
echo first > file.txt
hg add
hg ci -m first
hg branch test
echo test1 >> file.txt
hg ci -m test1
hg up 0
echo patch >> file.txt
hg qnew -f patch.diff
Then I performed hg merge test and resolved conflicts, and tried some different things:
Committing is denied due to the involvement of patches:
abort: cannot commit over an applied mq patch
I could not shelve the merge in TortoiseHg.
I could not qnew:
abort: cannot manage merge changesets
The only thing I found I could do to keep the merge was to finish the patches and commit the merge changeset. With the givens, I think keeping the patches and keeping the merge are mutually exclusive.
I know that pbranch allows merging with patches, and there's probably some way to import your MQ patches into it. I don't think it's supported in TortoiseHg, though.
Related
I'm transitioning to Mercurial from Subversion, where I'm used to using svnmerge.py to track changes that have already been merged, or which have been blocked from being merged:
# Mark change 123 as having already been merged; it will not be merged again, even if a range
# that contains it is subsequently specified.
svnmerge.py merge -M -r123
#
# Block change 326 from being considered for merges.
svnmerge.py merge -X -r326
#
# Show changes that are available for merging from the source branch.
svnmerge.py avail
#
# Do a catchall merge of the remaining changes. Neither change 123 nor change 326 will be
# considered for merging.
svnmerge.py merge
I want to be able to do something similar for hg pull/push/merge/graft, so that if I know that I never want to merge a given change, I can just block it from consideration, making subsequent cherry-picking, merging, etc., into a more fire-and-forget affair. I have done a lot of googling, but have not found a way to do this.
There also appears to be no way to view a list of as-yet-ungrafted changes.
As I'm often tidying up after other developers and helping them with their merges, it's immensely helpful to be able to do these kinds of things, which one might well consider "inverse cherry-picking;" i.e., marking changes that you do NOT want to merge, and then doing a bulk merge of the remainder.
DAG-based systems like Mercurial ans Git are all or nothing: when you merge two branches, you do a three-way merge of the common ancestor and the two branches.
The three-way merge is only concerned with the final stage of each branch. For instance, it doesn't matter if you make your changes in 10 it 1000 steps — the merge result will be the same.
This implies that the only way to ignore a changeset is to back it out before the merge:
$ hg backout BAD
That will cancel the changeset on the branch, making it appear that it was never made from the perspective of the three-way merge.
If you have a whole branch that you want to merge, but ignore, then you can do a dummy merge:
$ hg merge --tool internal:local --non-interactive
$ hg revert --all --rev .
That goes through the merge, but reverts back to the old state before committing.
The best advice I can give you is to structure your workflow so that the above backouts aren't necessary. This means committing a bugfix on the oldest applicative branch. If a bug is found while creating feature X, then use hg bisect to figure out when the bug was introduced. Now updated back to the oldest branch where you still want to fix the bug:
$ hg update 2.0
# fix bug
$ hg commit -m "Fixed issue-123"
then merge the bugfix into all later branches:
$ hg update 2.1
$ hg merge 2.0
$ hg commit -m "Merge with 2.0 to get bugfix for issue-123"
$ hg update 2.2
$ hg merge 2.1
$ hg commit -m "Merge with 2.1 to get bugfix for issue-123"
If the bugfix no longer applies, then you should still merge, but throw away the unrelated changes:
$ hg update 3.0
$ hg merge 2.2 --tool internal:local --non-interactive
$ hg revert --all --rev .
$ hg commit -m "Dummy merge with 2.2"
That ensures that you can always use
$ hg log -r "::2.2 - ::3.0"
to see changesets on the 2.2 branch that haven't been merged into 3.0 yet.
I have a large commit of many files on one branch, I need to transfer the modifications of a single file in that changeset to another branch. How can I do this? I am mostly using TortoiseHg but commandline solutions are also fine.
If I go to the changeset in TortoiseHg and select the file I can see the diffs I want to transfer, but not a way to actually apply them.
You can get the patch for just that file using:
hg log -r THEREVISIONWITHLOTSOFCHANGES -p -I path/to/justthatfile > justthatfile.patch
which you can then import on whatever branch you want by doing:
hg update anotherbranch
hg import --no-commit justthatfile.patch
hg commit
The most basic solution is to dump the patch of the file, apply it to the current working revision, and commit it (assuming you're at the root of the repository):
$ hg up <revision-to-apply-the-patch-to>
$ hg diff -c <revision-containing-the-patch> <files-to-include> | patch -p0
$ hg ci -m "Transplanting selected changes from <revision-contain...>"
The drawback of this method is that it isn't very obvious what you've done from a revision history perspective. A good commit message helps here, but the history graph gives no hint about the process of transplanting some changes. In that case merging and reverting may be a better solution:
$ hg up <revision-to-apply-the-patch-to>
$ hg merge -r <revision-containing-the-patch>
$ hg revert --no-backup <files-to-exclude>
$ hg ci -m "Merge in changes of <files-to-include>"
Probably there are more solutions to do this -- these two came to my mind first.
I have searched here, but haven't found any question related to this. I got a problem like this in mercurial:
I manage open source project in bitbucket, so i have clone of the source code in my local. But I also using that project for my own live site, so I made 2 clone of bitbucket repo
Bitbucket Repo
|
==local_clone1
|
==local_clone2-> commit1 => commit2 => commit3
(personalization) (bug fix) (add feature)
The question is, I want to push commit2 and commit3 back to local_clone1, so later on I can push to Bitbucket repo. But don't want to push commit1, since it has my personal data.
Wondering how we do that in mercurial?
This can be done without too much difficulty in this case. See Removing history in the Mercurial guide for more information.
Here's the basics of what you'll need to do:
Go to local_clone2
Get the revision number (hg tip will show you) from the current number. We'll call it 731.
hg export 730-731 > ../local_clone1/changes.diff (or wherever you like)
Go to local_clone1
hg import changes.diff
You may need to edit things manually; refer to that guide for more info in that case.
Here are a couple of options:
backout
Given a history constructed as:
hg init db
cd db
echo >file1
hg ci -Am clone # rev 0
echo >file2
hg ci -Am personalization # rev 1
echo >file3
hg ci -Am bugfix # rev 2
echo >file4
hg ci -Am feature # rev 3 <tip>
Then if the current working directory is the tip, the following commands will "undo" the personalization revision:
hg backout 1
hg ci -m backout
The advantage is history remains immutable, but shows the addition and backout of the personalization changeset.
Mercurial Queues
With the mq extension, history can be edited to remove a changeset:
hg qimport -r 1:3 # convert changesets 1-3 to patches
hg qpop -a # remove all patches (can't delete an applied patch)
hg qdel 1.diff # delete rev 1's patch
hg qpush -a # reapply remaining patches
hg qfin -a # convert all applied patches back to changesets.
The advantage is the personalization changeset disappears. The disadvantage is the changeset hashes change due to the history edit, so this should never be done to changesets that have already been pushed to others. There is also the risk of a mistake editing history.
is this possible with Mercurial? and which Version Control system can do this besides Clearcase?
David is correct that you can't have a branch that exists on only a single file, but it's worth pointing out that people often have branches that alter only a single file. Since the branch metadata is stored in the changeset, and since the changeset contains only a delta (change), having a branch that alters only a single files is nearly instantanous to create, update, commit, and merge, plus it takes up almost no space on disk.
Resultingly, it's a very common way to handle per-customer configurations. Keep the tiny change for them in a branch, and merge from main, where development happened, into that branch, whenever you want to update their deployment.
How you could use MQ:
$ hg qnew -m "Changes for client0" client0
... change the file ...
$ hg qref # update the client0 patch with the changes
$ hg qpop # pop the changes off the queue stack
... develop like normal ...
... client0 asks for a build ...
$ hg qpu # apply client0's patch
$ make release
$ hg qpop
It would get a bit finicky if you've got to deal with a lot of clients… But it may be worth considering.
The other thing you could do, of course, is just commit a bunch of .diff files:
... make changes for client 0 ...
$ hg diff > client0.diff
$ hg revert --all
$ hg add client0.diff
$ hg ci -m "Adding client0 changes"
... develop ...
... client0 asks for a build ...
$ patch -p1 < client0.diff
$ make release
$ hg revert --all
No, it's not possible. A branch in Mercurial is a snapshot of the entire repository state.
You could do it with CVS, though, as CVS tracks changes on a per-file basis :)
I have to run a dozen of different build tests on a code base maintained in a mercurial repository. I don't want to run serially these tests on same repository because they modify a set of common files and I want to run them in parallel on different machines. Also, after all tests are run I want to have access to latest test results from those test work areas. Currently I'm cloning the master repository a dozen of times and run in each clone one different test. Before each test execution I do a pull/update/purge preparation sequence in order to start the test on latest clean state. That's good for me.
I'm also preparing new changes using mq extension that I would test on all clones as above before committing them. For testing some ready candidate mq patches I want somehow to deploy/synchronize them to be available in test clones and apply those ready for testing using some guard before running the test.
Did anybody do this synchronization before? What's the most simple way to do it? Do I need to have versioned mq patches for that?
patches can be maintained in their own repository provided you passed the "-c" switch to qinit like so
hg qinit -c
You may still be able to create a patch repo after the fact via
cd .hg/patches
hg init
hg addremove
hg commit -m "my patches"
But I haven't ever tried that personally.
then .hg/patches can be treated like any other mercurial repository. so I think you could probably roll some shell scripting. to get into the .hg dir of your cloned repos and do a
hg clone http://centralrepo.com/patch_repo ./patches
Here is the solution that I've implemented. Few notes:
all patches guarded with ready_for_testing AND those unguarded are applied for testing.
using versioned repos is better because we can make abstraction of queue repository implementation
I use mercurial 1.5.1
master repo is in master dir
clone repos are in clone-x dirs
Here are the steps (some could be optional):
once: put patches in master repository under versioning using mercurial:
a. hg -R master init --mq #no commit happen here, can be done later
b. hg -R master commit --mq --addremove --message 'initial patch queue' #make them visible to clone repos
for each clone, once after clone creation finishes: assuming no patches created yet on clones, initialize mq sub-repository:
a. hg clone master\.hg\patches clone-x\.hg\patches
b. hg -R clone-x qselect ready_for_testing
for each change ready in master (patch created/imported in mq repo): do this before launching tests for it:
a. review/update guards of mq patches: those included for testing should be unguarded or with +ready_for_testing
b. hg -R master commit --mq -A #make them visible to clone repos
for each clone, for each [test] iteration for each clone: do this preparation sequence before running the actual test:
a. hg -R clone-x qpop --all --force
b. hg -R clone-x pull
c. hg -R clone-x update --clean
d. hg -R clone-x purge --all
e. hg -R clone-x pull --mq
f. hg -R clone-x update --mq
g. hg -R clone-x qpush --all
As of Mercurial version 1.5, you can create a patch queue repository in an already existing Mercurial repo using the following command:
hg init --mq
It is OK to have queued patches when you issue that command.