my company is using mercurial and the client is using TFS. we need a 2 way sync process??
if there are some changes in TFS these should be reflected in mercurial and vice versa
need some solution
like if v made some batch process etc
thnx in advance
I have not seen anything about an hg-tfs process, but there is one for git (git-tfs)... Kinda hokey, but may provide an option in conjunction with hg-git.
You'd still have to write up some scripts and such to automate the communication between the servers.
Alternatively, maybe the git-tfs project could be a good starting place for a new hg-tfs project :)
We had to do a one-time conversion of a TFS repo into Mercurial, and didn't find any good way to do it. Initially we wanted to use [tfs2svn], and then hg convert the SVN repo.
Alas, tfs2svn isn't stable when it comes to complex renames and branching. I managed to convert a small repo that way, but had to write a custom tfs2hg utility to convert another repo, with 2 years worth of history.
If you find a solution, please post an answer.
Related
I'm working on a collaborative scientific project that is made up by a handful of Python scripts (1M max) and a relatively large dataset (1.5 GB). The datasets are tightly linked to the python scripts since the datasets themselves are the science and the scripts are a simple interface to them.
I'm using Mercurial as my source control tool, but I am not clear on a good mechanism to define the repository. Logistically it makes sense to bundle these together so that by cloning the repository you'd get the entire package. On the other hand, I'm concerned about the source control tool dealing with large amounts of data.
Is there a clean mechanism to handle this?
If the data files change rarely and you normally need all of them anyway, then just add them to Mercurial and be done with it. All your clones will be 1.5 GB, but that is just the way it has to be with that amount of data.
if the data is binary data and changed often, then you might try to avoid downloading all the old data. One way to do this is to use a Subversion subrepository. You will have a .hgsub file with
data = [svn]http://svn.some.edu/me/ourdata
which tells Mercurial to make a svn checkout from the right-hand side URL and put the Subversion working copy into your Mercurial clone as data. Mercurial will maintain an additional file for you called .hgsubstate, in which it records the SVN revision number to checkout for any given Mercurial changeset. By using Subversion like this, you only end up with the latest version of the data on your machine, but Mercurial will know how to get older versions of the data when needed. Please see this guide to subrepositories if you go down this route.
There is an article on the official wiki about large binary files. But the proposition of #MartinGeisler is a really nice new alternative.
My first inclination is to separate the python scripts out into their own repository, but I really need more domain information to make the "right" call.
On the one hand, if new datasets will be created then you would want a core set of tools to be able to handle all of them, right? But I can also see how new datasets may introduce cases that the scripts may not have previously handled... although it seems like in an ideal world you would want scripts that are written in a general way so they can handle future data and existing datasets??
Does anybody have any advice about using Mercurial as a front end for Perforce? What I would like to do is to use Mercurial to handle really granular changes and then, once I'm done something, push it back up to the Perforce server.
I found this article http://www.dehora.net/journal/2008/01/05/using-mercurial-with-perforce/ but it doesn't suggest any tooling to help out with the integrations. Does any exist? I suppose I am looking for it pull any new changes from Perforce, integrate them into my local Mercurial then roll up all the Mercurial commits I've made since last integration and push them up to Perforce. Similar to git-p4.
I got an error when I followed the link you gave. But I suggest you look into the perfarce extension (I love the name!). I have not used it myself, but it's my understanding that this is what people use to bridge the gap between Mercurial and Perforce.
See also the wiki page on Perforce concepts. It seems to have a lot of good info.
As Martin says, Perfarce is what you want. I've used it at a previous job, and in general it works pretty well if you're just working with a single perforce branch into a single mercurial clone. If you start cloning multiple times from your original Mercurial clone, then things start getting complex. Not impossible, just complex.
In general it works by bundling all changes since you last pulled from Perforce. Creating a single perforce changelist from them. Tagging that changelist's comment with the hash of the Mercurial version and committing it to perforce. It then re-imports that change from Perforce and merges it into your Mercurial tree, and because they're both the same there's no merge.
Basically it works quite well for pull/edit/commit/update workflows. Unfortunately it's not any help when it comes to integrations (unless I missed something) as perforce branches aren't converted to Mercurial ones. It wouldn't know what to merge.
I need some opinions here.
I'm working on a Django project using buildout to get the dependencies, etc...
I use mercurial as DVCS.
Now... I need to customize one of the dependencies, so I can do one of the following:
(* The changes may not be useful for everyone else.)
1- Do a fork of the project in (github, bitbucket, etc...) maintain my version, and get the dependency with (mercurial or git) recipe.
2- Clone the project, put it in the PYTHONPATH, erase DVCS dirs and add it to my projects version. So every change will be private. Here I need to erase all the info from their DVCS or something.
Any other you can think of.
I'm missing something? I'm too off?
Thanks!
Esteban, take these steps: I'll talk in mercurial-speak, but this is all do able in git too.
clone their project
make your clone of their project a subrepo in your project
That gives you the best of all worlds. You can edit code in your project and their project without paying attention to which is which, and when you commit the changes to your code go into your repo along with a pointer to a new changeset in your clone of their project. Then when you want to update your clone of their project you can do so in place and merge simply.
So this is pretty much what you said in '1' but there's no need to do a fork or host that repo publically. Just edit their clone as a subrepo of your project and never push (which wouldn't work anyway since you don't have write access to their repo).
Your option two's primary drawback is that as they modify and improve their project on which you depend you'll have a hardtime pulling their improvements in and merging them with yours.
Well if you're using DVCS then all your commits are kept as change sets, and people can choose to apply your change set or not. So as long as you comment that change, people can choose apply the change or not as they see fit. What's more if they don't want that change, but want your other changes, they can pick and choose. So the truth is the DVCS takes care of the problem for you (provided the people pulling from you are using the DVCS properly).
Personally, I recommend forking, but like I said, it doesn't really matter.
You ask this question in a rather confusing way, and I don't know if you really understand the point of a DVCS.
The whole point of a DVCS is to allow you to have your own private repository. You do not need to publish your repository on github or bitbucket or any of those places unless you want to, but I certainly would not erase the DVCS information.
If the upstream project makes changes you do want in addition to your own private changes, you will have a devil of a time merging them unless you keep the DVCS information around.
Using Mercurial, you can include a project in yours by using the Mercurial subrepo feature.
Im in the process of trying to get my head round a dvcs such as mercurial. Im getting quite confused with certain points though. Firstly, a bit of context:
At the minute i mostly use subversion, and it works fine for my workflow,
Mostly the repository is for my own use, im the only web developer,and i only ever submit raw code to my manager, he never has to see the repository.
I use the repo to create major versions, and as backup so i can revert to it when something doesnt work out.
The repo also acts a file share, enabling me to work from the same codebase at work and at home.
My main reason for wanting to switch to mercurial, is the offline commits and easier branching / merging.
Firstly can anyone tell me how i would get mercurial to fit this workflow?
How do i go about sharing multiple repositories (i.e. one for each project) between computers?
Any help would be hugely appreciated,
Thanks
http://hginit.com/
There is a fantastic pre-chapter there specifically for SVN users. The rest of the tutorial will get you on your feet fairly quickly.
I'll answer just one part of your question, that of how to manage access to your repository from both home and work, because this is one of the situations where distributed version control is really useful.
The answer is that your two repositories are clones of one-another (to be correct, one is the clone of the other). You do some work during the day, check it in, then pull that work to your home repository (or push, but that requires more work). The next morning, you do the same thing in reverse. Mercurial comes with a built-in read-only HTTP server that makes it really easy, provided that you can expose a port.
The end result is that you have two repositories (ie, automatic backup of the entire history). At any given point in time, one is "better" than the other, but since you're the sole committer to both, they won't diverge.
What's the best way to move a Visual Sourcesafe repository to Mercurial (I'm interested in retaining all history)?
While I haven't made that particular conversion, I have gone from VSS to SVN using (IIRC) this script. You'll probably want to look into tailor and do a search for vss2hg. Also keep in mind that it may make sense to go through an intermediate step like vss2svn + svn2hg or similar.
The primary bit of advice I'd give though is: script the conversion so you can re-run it easily. That will let you run nightly conversions from VSS to Hg and make sure that everything is converting correctly before you pull the trigger on it.
I am the author of the vss2hg.pl script and have used it to move many projects from VSS to Mercurial. It has one or two minor bugs where some comments are not completely converted but I haven't seen any other issues. It converts complete history and works-around a problem with VSS where a user's PC clock can affect the order in which changes appear to be made.
A version of the script is available here.
I used the vss2hg.pl script from here. It is a Perl script, so you need to install ActivePerl first.
It worked great, but I ran into a problem with the dates. It turns out that the script supports three kinds of date formats. By default it is set to the UK date format (in line 547). The other two date formats are commented out in the code. After enabling the US date format, the script converted my SourceSafe database without a problem.
The Mercurial wiki has this page, which might be of interest: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/SourceSafeConversion. I've never used Visual source safe, so I don't have any personal experience with it.
I also found a mail from Patrick Mézard about the subject, but unfortunately he writes that a VSS converter will be difficult. He also talks about converting to Subversion first, and then from Subversion to Mercurial. I guess that means that there are VSS -> SVN converts out there. You can probably google that yourself.
I have done a conversion from SourceSafe to Mercurial for a client. I first converted the SourceSafe database to a Subversion repository and then from Subversion to Mercurial using the hg convert extension. See my blog post for details.
I just tried using vss2hg and ran into a problem that it only pickup up and converted 1 user. This means all my changesets etc will not be accurate as I won't be able to see who did them. Is this because I've not pre-setup all the required users in hg?