Is there a tool out there (preferably web-based) which would automatically detect commits to a BitBucket repository, and at that time, copy all files in the repository to a web-server via FTP?
I basically want a quick and painless way (if one exists) to set up continuous integration between my BitBucket repository and my website.
No build/compilation step would be necessary, since these are only front-end (HTML/CSS/Javascript) files.
The changegroup hook is the way to do this. See Hooks for info about what to do with it.
I've used changegroup hooks on my own hg repositories, but not in BitBucket; it's possible that the BitBucket servers are restricted in what you can do, I'm not sure. I do know a wget/curl attempt to rebuild a manual upon my server upon updating its contents in a repository on SourceForge failed for me because they've locked up their servers too tightly (sending an email from the hook would work but not http access). I would expect BitBucket to be set up better; a quick search for "bitbucket changegroup hook" doesn't seem to indicate that there are any problems with it. Try it and see!
Related
I have a mercurial server, running RhodeCode, that I commit my code to. My client has a Redmine installation and has requested that code I modify for them be stored on their server (understandable).
I would like to still commit to RhodeCode and after a successful commit, push these changes to their repository automatically. They have their code in both an SVN repository and a mercurial repository. I am allowed to commit to either - and they handle the synchronization between the two. My assumption is that it'd be easier to push to a mercurial repository.
I have a changegroup hook in mind, but I have a few technical questions on how this should work.
What is the best way to handle both receiving and pushing out to an external repository though?
User ----> RhodeCode ----> Redmine
At the RhodeCode step/changegroup hook, how do I forward on my changes? Can I do it directly from the main repository or am I forced to clone it into another directory and push that to the client?
Is there a better way to maintain my master repository and push my client's changes on?
I see no problem with this; the Mercurial hook in Buildbot works this way, doesn't it?
A noob question... i think
I use Mercurial for my project on my laptop. How do i submit the project to an online server like codeplex?
I'm using tortoisehg and i cant find the upload interface for submit the project online...
From the command line, the command is:
hg push <url>
to push changes a remote repository.
In TortoiseHg, this is accessed through the "Synchronize" function, which seems to show up if you right-click in a Windows Explorer window but not on any file. It's also available in the workbench; the icon is 2 arrows pointing in a circle.
For these things, I find the best way to go is to use the command line interface - TortoiseHG is OK if you need to perform some common operations from the file browser, and it's a nice tool to visualize some aspects of your repository, but it doesn't implement all of mercurial's features in full detail, and it renames and bundles some operations for no apparent reason.
I don't know how things work at codeplex, but I assume it is similar to bitbucket or github, in which case here's what you'd do:
Create an empty repository on the remote end (codeplex / bitbucket / ...).
Find the remote repository's URL - for bitbucket, it is https://bitbucket.org/yourname/project, or ssh://hg#bitbucket.org/yourname/project.
From your local repository, commit all pending changes, then issue the command: hg push {remote_url}, where {remote_url} is the URL of the remote repository. This will push all committed changes from your local repository to the remote repository.
Since the remote's head revision (an empty project) is the same as the first revision in your local copy (because all hg repositories start out empty), mercurial should consider the two repositories related and accept the push.
For an introductory guide to command-line mercurial, I recommend http://hginit.com/
What are all steps required to validate commit message with set of regular expressions?
We want to work in semi-centralized set-up so I need a solution for the developer clone (local repository) and for our central clone (global repository). I read about Mercurial Hooks but I am a little bit lost how to put all things together.
For local repository I need a way to distribute validation script across my developers. I know that hooks do not propagate when cloning so I need to a way to "enable" them in each fresh clone. It would be done as a part of our PrepareEnvironement.bat script that we run anyway on each clean clone.
To be double safe I need similar validation on my global repository. It should not be possible to push into global repository commit that are not validating. I can configure it manually - it is one time job.
I am on Windows so installing anything except TortoiseHG should not be required. It was already a fight to get Mercurial deployed. Any other dependencies are not welcomed.
You can use the Spellcheck example as a starting point. In each developer's configuration, you need to use the following hooks:
pretxnchangegroup - Runs after a group of changesets has been brought into local from another repository, but before it becomes permanent.
pretxncommit - Runs after a new changeset has been created in local, but before it becomes permanent.
For the centralized repo, I think you only need the pretxnchangegroup hook unless commits can happen on the server, too. However, you will need the Histedit extension for each of the developers if the remote repo is the one rejecting one or more of the changesets being pushed. This extension allows them to "edit" already committed changesets. I would think in most cases, the local hooks will catch the issue, but like you said, "just in case."
More details about handling events with hooks can be found in the Hg Book.
I'm new to Perforce and Mercurial, so bear with me. I would like to use Mercurial to interface with Perforce in the following way:
I check-out a local Perforce workspace using the P4V client. I then clone a Mercurial repo of that workspace, and use this cloned repo for all my work. When I need updated files, I would first update the local Perforce workspace, and then have the Mercurial repo pull from that. When I'm ready to commit, I push my changes to the local Perforce workspace. Then I use the P4V client to commit my changes in the Perforce workspace to the Perforce depot. Essentially, the local Perforce workspace is a proxy for the Perforce repot.
The reason behind this set-up (versus the common scenario of directly pulling from and pushing to the Perforce repot) is that there is some configuration I need to do via the P4V client (such as mapping/renaming files and directories).
I've looked at the convert and perfarce extensions, but I'm not quite sure they do what I want. They seem to do a one-time conversion, and then thereafter they talk directly to the Perforce repot. Any help would be appreciated.
Convert does an incremental conversion, where it will convert only new changes, but it's unidirectional only (perforce -> mercurial).
I've not looked at the perfarce extension, but it's my understanding that's it's built for a bi-directional, continuous process -- you might want to look at it again.
Alternately, the non-extension options on the Working with Subversion page in the mercurial wiki, details a process for using Mercurial alongside/atop Subversion w/o them interacting in any way except for the file working directory. That's probably very similar to what you're looking to do.
The Perfarce extension should do what you want. I'm also experimenting with a similar setup, and I can pull & push to Perforce quite happily.
I must admit I am having issues with local config files and how they operate in this environment, but there's a couple of other answers here on SO that appear to address this.
I would recommend you give Perfarce a go first, before reverting to anything more manual.
We come from a subversion background where we have a QA manager who gives commit rights to the central repository once he has verified that all QC activities have been done.
Me and a couple of colleagues are starting to use mercurial, and we want to have a shared repository that would contain our QC-ed changes. Each of the developers hg clones the repository and pushes his changes back to the shared repository. I've read the HG init tutorial and skimmed through the red bean book, but could not find how to control who is allowed to push changes to the shared repository.
How would our existing model of QA-manager controlled commits translate to a mercurial 'central' repository?
HenriW's comment asking how you are serving up the repositories is exactly the right question. How you set up authentication depends entirely on how you're serving your repo (HTTP via Apache, HTTP via hg-serve,, ssh, etc.). The transport mechanism provides the authentication and then mercurial uses that with the commands from Mr. Cat's link (useless in and of themselves) to handle access control.
Since you didn't mention how you're serving the repo, it was probably someting easy to set up (you'd have remembered to mention the hassle fo an apache or ssh setup :). So I'll ugess those two:
If you're using hg serve then you don't have authentication setup. You need to use apache, lighttp, or nginx in front of hgweb or hgwebdir to provide authentication. Until you do the allow_* and deny_* options are strictly everyone or no one.
If you're using ssh then you're already getting your authentication fromm ssh (and probably your OS), so you can use the allow_* and deny_* directives (and file system access controls if you'd like).
serverfault.com has a relevant question and links to the Publishing Repositories Mercurial Wiki page. The first shows how to configure per-repository access when using hgweb on the server. I get a feeling that you're using ssh which the wiki page labels as "private" and am therefore inclined to believe you would have to fall back to file-system access control, i.e. make all the files in the repository belong to the group "commiters", give group members write access and everyone else read/only.