How do I check for potential merge/rebase conflicts in Mercurial? - mercurial

Is there a simple way to check if a merge/rebase will yield file conflicts, without actually performing the merge/rebase?
I want to be able to decide whether to:
rebase if the touched file set (mine vs. theirs) are different
merge if we've been messing with the same files.
Since a bad merge (caused by resolving conflicts the wrong way by human error) is easier to detect and reverse if I do a merge of two heads, rather than having done rebase. Especially if I push my changes and than later realized that something was messed up.
(It's not possible to always check everything beforehand, as we don't have a totally comprehensive test-suite.).
And.. I'm running Windows. :)

So, with some aid from Martin's answer, I've come up with the rebaseif extension, which does what I want.
Essentially, it tries to rebase using the internal merge tool, if that fails (which it does for any conflict), it aborts and does a merge with the user's preferred tool.
See https://bitbucket.org/marcusl/ml-hgext/src/tip/rebaseif.py for details.
Update
In recent months, I've gone back to just do a merge, since it's inherently safe. A non-conflict rebase might still muck things up since dependent files can affect the change. (i.e. a rebase loses information of how the code looked before merge).
As the rebaseif author, I recommend to use plain old merge instead. :)

There is no reason to use hg merge if the changes overlap and hg rebase otherwise since hg rebase make a merge internally and will let you resolve it using the same tools as hg merge.
As for testing if a merge or rebase will cause conflicts, then you can use
$ hg merge --tool internal:merge
in Mercurial 1.7 to override your normal merge tool configuration. (The --tool internal:merge part is new, use --config ui.merge=internal:merge in earlier versions of Mercurial.)
Following the merge,
$ hg resolve --list
will tell you the results and you will get back to where you started with
$ hg update --clean .

You can see if two changesets, REV1 and REV2, affect any of the same files doing something like:
(hg status --change REV1 --no-status ; hg status --change REV2 --no-status) | sort | uniq --repeated
If that has any output then the same file is touched in both revisions.
That could easily be made a shell script like:
#!/bin/sh
(hg status --change $1 --no-status ; hg status --change $2 --no-status) | sort | uniq --repeated
which could be run as any of these:
./find_overlaps c8f7e56536ab d9e2268e20b9
./find_overlaps 1 33
If you really wanted to get fancy you could tweak the script to automatically run merge or rebase depending on whether or not any lines were found.
If you're on windows my god help you. :)

Related

Create patch for series of existing changesets that were created without using MQ?

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.

How do you usually comment your merges in mercurial (solo developer, only one external repo in bitbucket)?

When I have to commit merges I've done in mercurial, I just do hg commit -m "Merge."
What do you usually do when Merging? Do you write the changesets in a comment, or try to write "meaningfull" comments (since I think they are useless, except when you're doing merges from two really different repos in different locations).
Is it possible to create an alias in mercurial (like hgmerge) in [alias] in hgrc, that automatically does hg commit -m "Merge: heads ${head}, ${head} ..."?
It would be easy to create that alias (I'll do it below) but it's also of almost no value. It's very easy to pull the parent1 and parent2 values out of a merge changeset, so it's not really telling you anything more than just "merge" would.
Personally, even on single person repos I try to put something at least halfway useful even if it's just something like these:
merging configuration work into code
merging work from desktop into work from laptop
merging away an anonymous branch I didn't like
forgot to pull/update before editing
There's always some reason history diverged, even if it's a totally mundane reason like forgetting to update or working disconnected at the coffeeshop, and that's what I note.
That said you could do this:
hg commit -m "merging: $(hg parents --template '{node|short}\n') | xargs"
which you sould make a shell alias with:
[aliases]
mycommit = !$HG hg commit -m "merging: $(hg parents --template '{node|short}\n') | xargs"
Allowing you to run hg mycommit, but just dig for the better description.
P.S. Someone is going to suggest the fetch extension. Ignore them.
When I'm merging after a pull, I usually only write something like "merge after pull". When I must correct something after the merge, I'll precisely describe what I did so my coworkers can understand the changes.
When I'm merging a branch in another, I precise the two branches on the commit message "merging branch1 in branch2".
As for the alias, sorry, I have no idea.

Using Mercurial (hg), is there a way to diff rev 4873 and 4821 but only for my changes?

I want to know what changes I made, without looking at the 30 other files that other team members modified.
So when I hg out, it said the first changeset to push was 4821, so since then I have pulled, merged, and pushed a couple times. Now I want to make sure all the debugging code is removed. Is there a way to diff the current revision (4873) against revision 4821 but only for my changes?
If your changes are in different files than those of your coworkers, which is how it sounds, you can use something like this:
hg diff -r 4821 -r 4863 -I path/to/file1 -I path/to/file2
If they're mixed in the same files as other people's changes then you would have needed to keep your changes in a separate branch (which doesn't require the branch command, anonymous branching is commonly used for this sort of thing).
The following command should do the trick:
hg diff -r "4821:4873 and user(your_username)"
I don't know if you can upgrade to the recently release Mercurial 1.6 or not, but this functional query language feature they just put in is what you might be looking for.
Try this approach:
First clone your local repo to another folder
In the new clone, rebase your last changeset so that it immediately follows your the other changeset (this should create a new head from it)
Do the diff

Why does mercurial merge committed changes in the working copy?

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.

Mercurial cherry picking changes for commit

Say, I made many changes to my code and only need to commit a few of those changes. Is there a way to do it in mercurial? I know that darcs has a feature like this one.
I know hg transplant can do this between branches, but I need something like this for committing code in the present branch and not when adding change sets from some other branch.
If you are using TortoiseHg 1.x for Windows, this feature is implemented beautifully right out of the box (no extensions required).
Run the TortoiseHg Commit Tool.
Choose a file for which you only
want to commit a subset of its
changes.
Click on the Hunk
Selection tab in the preview pane.
Double-click or use the spacebar to
toggle which change hunks should be
included in the commit.
For TortoiseHg 2.x, the Hunk Selection tab is now gone. In its place, is the Shelve tool. It has a few more features than the old hunk selection. Those new features come at the cost of some added complexity.
Note that there is no need to explicitly enable the Mercurial Shelve extension when using this feature. According to Steve Borho (lead TortoiseHg developer) in response to a different TortoiseHg question: "We have a local copy of the shelve extension and call into it directly."
For TortoiseHg 2.7+, this functionality has been improved and re-introduced. It is now built directly into the Commit tool:
Notice in the file list on the left that the top file is checked to indicate it will be included, the second file is unchecked because it will not be included, and the third file, Sample.txt, is filled (the Null checkbox indicator) because only select changes from that file will be included in the commit.
The change to Sample.txt that will be included is checked in the lower-right change selection portion of the image. The change that will be excluded is unchecked and the diff view is grayed out. Also notice that the icon for the shelve tool is still readily available.
MQ as Chad mentioned are one way. There's also more lightweight solutions:
Record extension which works roughly the same way as darcs record. It's distributed with mercurial.
Shelve extension which allows you to "shelve" certain changes, allowing you to commit only a subset of your changes (the ones that are not shelved)
I feel like I'm missing something because nobody has suggested this already.
The normal "hg commit" command can be used to selectively choose what to commit (you don't have to commit all pending changes in the local working directory).
If you have a set of changes like so:
M ext-web/docroot/WEB-INF/liferay-display.xml
M ext-web/docroot/WEB-INF/liferay-portlet-ext.xml
M ext-web/docroot/WEB-INF/portlet-ext.xml
You can commit just two of those changes with...
hg commit -m "partial commit of working dir changes" ext-web/docroot/WEB-INF/liferay-display.xml ext-web/docroot/WEB-INF/liferay-portlet-ext.xml
Not super convenient from the command line because you have to hand-type the files to selectively commit (vs a GUI check-box process like tortoise) but it's about as straightforward as it gets and requires no extensions. And file-globbing can probably help reduce typing (as it would above, both committed files uniquely share "liferay" in their pathnames.
The Mercurial Queues tutorial is terrible for this use case. All the examples I have seen assume you have yet to make a commit and you are refreshing a single patch. Most of the time this is not the case, and you have 2 or 3 commits that you want to squash together or change in some other way.
Lets say you have this sort of history:
---O---O---A---B---C
The first example is to squash commits A, B, and C. First init mq:
$ hg qinit
Now we need to "import" the commits A, B and C into the patch queue. Lets assume they are the last 3 commits. We can use the "-N" revision syntax to import them like so:
$ hg qimport -r -3:-1
That means import as patches from 3 patches back up to the last commit. You can check the status of these patches with hg qseries. It should show something like this:
$ hg qseries
101.diff
102.diff
103.diff
Where the numbers 101, 102 and 103 correspond to the local revision numbers of the commits A, B and C. Now these patches are applied, which means the changes that they describe are already in the working copy. You can get rid of the changes the working copy and remove them from the history of commits, saving them in patch form only, by using hg qpop. You can either say hg qpop; hg qpop to pop changes C and B off the stack, or specify a patch to "pop to". In this case, it would be something like this:
$ hg qpop 101.diff
now at: 101.diff
You now have the patches for commits B and C in the patch queue, but they are not applied (their changes have been "lost" - they only exist in the patch queue area). Now you can fold these patches into the last one, i.e. we create a new commit that is the equivalent of the sum of the changes A+B+C.
$ hg qfold -e 102.diff 103.diff
This will show your editor so you can change the commit message. By default the message will be the concatenation of the commit messages for the changes A, B and C, separated by asterisks. The nice thing here is that hg qfold will tab-complete the patches if you are using bash and have the hg-completion script sourced. This leaves the history like this, where A+B+C is a single commit that is the combination of the 3 patches that interest us:
---O---O---A+B+C
Another use case is if we have the same sort of history as before, but we want to drop patch B and merge A+C. This is pretty similar to above actually. When you get to the qfold step, you would simply fold in the last commit rather than the last 2 commits:
$ hg qfold -e 103.diff
This leaves the change for B in the patch queue, but it is not applied to the working copy and its commit is not in the history. You can see this by running:
$ hg qunapplied
102.diff
The history now looks like this, where A+C is a single commit that combines changes A and C:
---O---O---A+C
A final use case might be that you need to apply only commit C. You'd do this by running the qimport as above, and you would pop off all patches you didn't want:
$ hg qpop -a
The -a flag means pop off all patches. Now you can apply just the one you do want:
$ hg qpush 103.diff
This leaves you with this history:
---O---O---C
Once you are done with all this, you need to finish off the queue fiddling. This can be done with:
$ hg qfinish -a
So there we are. You can now run hg push and only commit exactly what you want, or hg email a coherent patch to the mailing list.
Some time has passed. Seems the best option now is hg commit --interactive
You can use the record extension, which is distributed with Mercurial.
You need to enable it in your ~/.hgrc file first, by adding it to the [extensions] section:
[extensions]
record=
Then, just type hg record instead of hg commit, and you will be able to select which changes to which files you want to commit.
You can also use the crecord extension which provides a nicer interface to review and select the changes. (It is not distributed with Mercurial, though, and I've seen it occasionally mess up a commit so it's not completely bug-free.)
I believe Mercurial Queues fills this role for Mercurial. There's a pretty good tutorial linked there.
Try qct (Qt Commit Tool). It has a "select changes" feature that starts up a 3-way merge tool for you to undo individual changes. After you commit, those changes you "undid" come back.
I use commit-patch. It's a script that lets you edit the diff before committing. It's really nice with Emacs's diff-mode and vc-mode.
In the past I used crecord, but it has bugs related to unicode (actually the record extension has the bugs, which crecord depends on).
First you must forget everything you ever knew about GUI's and return to the commandline. Next from the commandline do this:
hg stat > filelist.txt
This pipes all your modified files into a text file called filelist.txt
Next edit your filelist to include only the files you wish to commit.
Finally commit using the fileset sytnax:
hg commit "set: 'listfile:test.txt'"