I had two patches in series, neither one applied, and I accidentally called qdelete on the wrong one. Is there any way to reverse this operation and get my patch back? I had a huge amount of work in this one!!!
The way to avoid this (and I know it's not helpful now, sorry) is to not just use Mercurial Queues, mq, but to use it with a patch repository. Mercurial/mq has great support for this.
When initially creating the queue you do:
hg qinit --create-repo
(instead of just hg qinit), which creates a new Mercurial repository in your .hg/patches directory. Then you can use:
hg commit --mq
to commit all your patch files, and bringing this back would be just a matter of:
hg revert --mq
The bottom line, and again I know it's not helping you now, but maybe it'll help the next guy or you later, is: if you're writing code and it isn't committed somewhere it doesn't exist -- commit and push early and often
Unfortunately, if you did not use the -k option when calling the qdelete command, the patch file also got deleted. Thus your only hope is either a backup or an tool that could perform some "undelete" operation.
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 recently started to work on an open source project which uses Mercurial.
I'm a new user to Mercurial, so I read the HG book and started working.
My goal was to write code and always pull and merge changes from the upstream
so I can stay up-to-date. The area that I am working on is also under heavy
development by others so I do want to merge my changes after a long period of
time. I cloned a repo. So, my workflow is like this:
I created a bookmark mybook
hg up mybook
Write code
3.1 hg commit -m 'new functions'
hg up default
hg pull
hg update
hg up mybook
hg merge default
Go to step 3.
In my mind this is the simplest workflow that allows me to stay up-to-date. I
also have only one HEAD because I always merge.
Since I am not a contributor yet, I am not allowed to push changes to remote
repo.
Recently I wanted to show my work to a project lead and he said send me a patch.
And this is where I am stuck. hg out shows 10 changesets. First of which
appeard already a month ago. They're numbers are 3341, 3342, 3345, 3346, 3349, 3356, 3360, 3365, 3366, 3368. The changeset numer 3368 is the tip.
I've recently read the chapter about the MQ extension. And this extensions seems to be what I need. But the problem is that I wrote code without using the MQ
extension.
So, how can I make use of the MQ extension on already created changesets so that
I can make a patch to send to the project lead so that he can apply it and see
my changes?
I've just issued hg qinit. What's next?
Issueing hg qimport -r 3341 gives
abort: revision 3341 has unmanaged children
Reading the book and googling further does not help me. I need an advice.
PS I've tried not using hg and MQ at all: simple diff -urN old/ new/ but I
want understand how to do it with the MQ.
Thank you.
Yeah, don't use MQ. It's a parallel system, meant for keeping things out of the history, and more important you don't need it.
You were asked for "a patch", not a complete history of your work, so I would recommend sending it in the form of a single before-after diff. hg export will give you a series of diffs, for all the work you've done, including the merges. I find it's far easier to read and review a single diff (before applying it). But instead of plain diff, use hg diff which knows to only look at tracked files, and has a number of other nice features (including the --git option, which provides richer metadata). This should do it:
hg up mybook
hg diff --git -r default > mywork.patch
Before sending it off, do an hg up default and apply the patch to check that it works without conflicts. And mention to the recipient which version of default you are patching against.
Edit: As you can read in the comments, #LazyBadger is a fan of the step-by-step patch generated by export. I prefer the single-step patch
since my history is usually TMI: Nobody cares about all the times I added a forgotten file, or noticed a bug too late and fixed in in the next commit, etc.
Take your pick.
As I understand it, you can't really fix a comment in Hg. So what I would like to do instead is re-push the exact same changes (or at least "touch" the same files and commit & push again).
The reason this is necessary is because we have a bug tracking and build system that relies on specific comment patterns, and we need to make sure the right files get included in the build, but if I forget to update the bug # in my comment from my last commit, and I accidentally commit and push it under the wrong # because i'm overzealous, how can I re-push those same files again without manually going into each one and adding a space or line break just to create a diff?
To clarify, I can't "rollback" or something; it's already been pushed with the wrong message.
As far as I know, current Mercurial features provide no support for this. After the changeset has been pushed, there's little you can do to un-push it, besides stripping it from the server repo and any other developer's repo.
I guess you you should ask those who set up this workflow in your shop; they should've come up with some exception handlers for it.
We usually just ignore issues like this, and close the bug by hand, making sure the bug links to the correct changeset. If the changeset is really messed up (usually this means bad changes, not a malformed commit message), we resort to stripping.
Since your change has already been pushed you can't use a simple fix, like "hg commit --amend", but you can do something similar. Basically, the following commands re-do the commit with Mercurial's help:
CSET=...the changeset to re-do...
hg up -r "p1($CSET)" # Update the working directory to the parent revision
hg log -r "$CSET" -p > changes.patch
hg import --no-commit changes.patch
hg commit # And use the appropriate commit message.
Then, merge and push.
The only way that I could think of doing this is to commit two more changes, one would be an hg backout of the incorrect revision and the other would be an hg backout of that revision with the corrected comment.
I don't like that idea though and wouldn't recommend it if there was any way to fix the problem in your bug tracking system.
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
If I do 'hg status' and see the following:
R flash/AC_OETags.js
it seems to mean that there is no file there, but there has been one at some point that has been removed.
How do I 'commit' this change so it stops showing up when I do 'hg status'?
==UPDATE==
The answer seems to be to commit the file. Actually, there are ~100 files with status R because I removed an entire directory tree. Anyone know how to commit all files in a directory tree in one go?
I don't want to do just hg commit, because there are other changes too.
The “R” means “Removed” so the next time we commit in Mercurial this file will be removed. (The history of the file will remain in the repository, so of course we can always get it back).
therefore run your hg commit command and all will be well
Thanks to hginit.com for that titbit - its my Mercurial bible
You can commit just that file:
hg commit flash/AC_OETags.js
however having "masses of other uncommitted files" is terrible process. You need to come up with a workflow that lets you commit frequently.
You can use the repository explorer from TortoiseHg to easily manage the files you want to include in a commit.
Also, removing a directory probably warrants a changeset in itself. You should get into the habit of committing more often (one concept, one commit... and it's local anyway). Furthermore, as long as you haven't pushed your changes to anyone (or anyone pulled from you) you could still use hg rebase --collapse to regroup some changesets if you think you have separated too much (this is a more advanced feature that I suggest you try on a test repository first as you could break things if you're not careful)