What if one branch has two heads? I came to this situation weeks ago for some reason I didn't merged them back then and just continued developing on one head. Now I want to get rid of the other head. What should I do? Should I just merge them after so many changesets?
So you have this:
o--o--o--A--B <- older unnecessary head
\
1--2--3--4--5--6 <- newer ‘good’ head
...and you don't need A and B, absolutely, 100% sure. If you aren't sure, and there are possibly salvageable things in A and B, better merge the heads to combine the changes. As Aaron said, Mercurial is good at it.
Now you have two options:
get rid of the old head, or
do a dummy merge of two heads that ignores head B.
If changesets A and B are present in other repositories you don't control, e.g. if other people pulled A and B into their repositories, or you pushed A and B to a public repository (say, Bitbucket), then you've released A and B into the wild, and can't get rid of them. You should do a dummy merge:
$ hg up 6
$ hg --config ui.merge=internal:local merge
This will ignore any changes from A and B when merging.
If, on the other hand, A and B are private, you can either strip them:
$ hg strip A
(Rev A and descendants stripped; enable the MQ extension to make strip available.)
Or, make a new clone of your repository without changesets A and B:
$ hg clone myrepo myrepo2-clone -r 6
(Only rev 6 and ancestors added to the clone.)
A head is created if you commit some changes (add a changeset to an existing changeset). If that happens several times for the same changeset, then several heads are created. This is nothing unusual or bad.
The usual solution is to merge them. Mercurial is very good at merging. Chances are that the result will still compile and run without any manual work.
Just run hg merge and then hg status and hg diff to see what changed between the two. If you like the result, commit it. If you don't like it, update to either head to clean your workspace.
To get rid of a head, the docs explain how to do that.
Using MQ, you can also turn the second head into an independent branch (so you can keep it around but it won't bother you). See this answer: How can I create a branch for a non-tip revision in Mercurial?
If you need to keep the changes on the old branch, you should merge them, and it should not be a problem.
Related
We have a very unfortunate situation where a new feature branch was made from a second, unrelated feature branch that had been put on hold rather than from default. There's multiple changesets within both feature branches and while most changed files are unrelated several high level project files that have edits on both branches. Default has also had several updates and merges during this time too. Thankfully the intermediate feature hasn't been updated concurrently with the new feature. I've looked into various commands and options available and lost how to best fix this situation. The tree currently looks roughly like:
Default -- Various edits and merges -- tip
\
\-- Named Branch 1 (15 changes) -- Named Branch 2 (30 edits)
I want to get to a point where default has the changes from Named Branch 2 but none from Named Branch 1. I also want a branch that has the changes from Named Branch 1 available for when we return to this feature.
I suspect there's no nice easy way to do this, and there's going to be some messy parts in the history, however I am at a loss at how to start going about this task.
hg graft can cherry-pick changesets from one branch to another. Update to the destination branch, then graft the revisions you want to copy by running, for example:
hg graft 8 9 10
Conflicts will be handled using the normal merge process.
If you use TortoiseHg, select the changesets to graft to the current selected changeset, then right-click and select Graft Selected to local...:
Result:
Since you want to move the entire branch 2, you could consider using rebase. Make a clone of the repository and try this:
hg rebase --source <first branch2 rev> --dest <new parent in default> --keepbranches
This will in principle transform the history to what it should have been. However:
You may have to resolve conflicts arising when <first branch2 ver> gets moved to a new parent.
Since rebase rewrites history, you'll have to get everyone to cooperate in synchronizing their repositories. Whether that's feasible or worth the trouble in your case I can't say, but it's not that difficult: Assuming everyone has pushed any changes in branch 2, they can pull the new history and then get rid of the obsolete version of branch 2 with hg strip:
hg strip <first branch2 rev>
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'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.
I've got a (remote) Hg repository with a couple branches. I want to verify that branch A has every changeset that branch B has (it may have more, and that's OK).
Is there an easy way to do this with just hg?
I can write a little shell script to do it, but it seems like the sort of thing that might come up a lot, so maybe there's an easy built-in way.
This will show any ancestors of changeset b which are not an ancestor of changeset a:
hg log -r "ancestors(b) and not ancestors(a)"
This should show you which changes still need to be merged from B to A if you give the head of branch B for b, and the head of branch A for a.
I've been using Mercurial for a few weeks now and don't understand why when Mercurial comes to merge committed changes from two repositories it does it in the working copy?
Surely the merge could happen without the use of the working copy removing the need to shelf changes etc.
It just doesn't seem necessary to involve the working copy. Am I missing something?
There is only one working copy per repository, by definition:
The working directory is the top-level directory in a repository, in which
the plain versions of files are available to read, edit and build.
Unless your file system descends from Schrödinger's cat, you cannot have two versions of the same file at the same time, thus you cannot have two working copies.
Nevertheless, it's indeed theoretically possible to use something like a ephemeral clone (per #Ry4an) to act as the working copy of a merge, resolve conflicts there, commit, then make it disappear. You'd get a beautiful merge changeset and your intact working copy.
I can think of several ways to achieve this:
Petition hg team to do it in core
Write an extension to implement the ephemeral clone or some other way
Shelve with a temporary changeset
Shelve with MQ
I would strongly recommend #4, as I would for almost all workflow scenarios. It took me a few good days to grok MQ, but once I did I've never had to turn back.
In an MQ workflow, your working copy is always the current patch. So for the merge situation you would do:
hg qrefresh
hg qpop -a
hg update -r<merge first parent>
hg merge [-r<merge second parent>]
hg commit
hg update qparent
hg qgo <working copy patch>
You don't have to pop all patches in #2. I always do that whenever I need to deal with real changesets to avoid mixing them up with patches.
Solution #3 is really the same as #4, since a patch is a temporary changeset by definition (this is really the only thing you need for understanding MQ). It's just different commands:
hg commit -A
hg update -r<merge first parent>
hg merge [-r<merge second parent>]
hg commit
hg update -r<working copy changeset parent>
hg revert -a -r<working copy changeset>
hg strip <working copy changeset>
If you want to keep the working copy changeset and continue to commit, simply update to it in #5.
From your question it seems like you already know #4 but don't like shelving. I think shelving is good because merging is a fundamentally different task than coding (changing working copy), and shelving makes the context switch explicit and safe.
I didn't write Mercurial, so I can't say why they did it that way, but here are some of the positive results of that decision:
you can look over the results of the merge before you commit it
you can edit the results of the merge before you commit it
you're encouraged to commit frequently
If you really want to do a merge and have stuff in your working dir that you can't bear to commit don't bother with shelve just do:
cd ..
hg clone myrepo myrepo-mergeclone
hg -R myrepo-mergeclone merge
hg -R myrepo-mergeclone push myrepo
On the same file system clone is near instantaneous and uses hardlinks under the covers so it takes up almost no space past that of the temporary working copy.
As mentioned in the chapter "Merge" of HgInit:
The merge command, hg merge, took the two heads and combined them.
Then it left the result in my working directory.
It did not commit it. That gives me a chance to check that the merge is correct.
Such check can include conflicts in merge, that the user has to review:
In KDiff3, you see four panes
The top left is the original file.
Top center shows Rose her version.
Top right shows Rose my version.
The bottom pane is an editor where Rose constructs a merged file with the conflicts resolved.
So you need a working directory (a view for the merge) in order to resolve fully a merge.