Is there a way to clone a repo that comes with subrepos, but without having Mercurial pull all the subrepos?
It appears that while hg clone -U can be used to obtain an empty clone of a repo, there's nothing that would convince hg update to avoid starting off by pulling all of the subrepos.
I should point out that it is crucial to retain the ability to easily sync to the head revision after creating such a clone.
This should do what you want:
REM Take a new clone, but do not update working directory
hg clone --noupdate %REPO_PATH% %DESTINATION%
REM Update working directory but exclude the certain subprojects
hg revert --all --rev %BRANCH% --exclude %SUBREPO_PATH_1% --exclude %SUBREPO_PATH_2%
This answer may add more than the question required, but provides some valuable notes on working with Mercurial when you can't update do to a bad subrepository path or revision.
Step 1: Clone the repository without any updates
hg clone --noupdate source_repository destination_repository
Step 2: Use revert to get the right files
hg revert --all --rev revision_number --exclude subrepo_1 --exclude subrepo_2 ...
At this point, you have a new changeset; you may need to make sure the parent revision is correct. When I did this, my new changeset's parent was changeset 0. To fix this I had to set the parent changeset AND switch branches (since my changeset was on a different branch).
Step 3: Change the parent of the current changes
hg debugsetparents revision_number
hg branch branch_name
That should do it.
Found a hacky way. It still requires all subrepos to be checked out once, but afterwards they can be deleted.
Clone the whole lot, including subrepos. No way around this.
Delete subrepos
hg remove .hgsub
I tried to convince Mercurial to hg remove .hgsub before the subrepos are cloned, but the best I got is not removing .hgsub: file is untracked.
If you have a subrepo, a working directory must include some version of that subrepo. That version may be a fixed older revision if specified, or the tip if not.
You cannot update your repo without getting the subrepos; if you had a complete working dir without them, you shouldn't be using subrepos - use truly external repos instead.
If your subrepos are pegged against a certain remote version, then updates after the first will not trigger a subrepo update - they're already up-to-date. But for the initial creation of the working directory, you will have to do a remote pull.
You can trick Mercurial by munging the hgsubstate file. But really, your model and the conceptual model differ, so you're probably not a good match for subrepos if this is a concern.
edit: If you find yourself cloning and then updating to the tip many times, try using local branches or mq instead. That way you only have to do the initial clone once.
Related
I ran hg update -r REVISION to revert a branch to a previous revision, but when I try to push this to a remote repository it says "no changes found". How can I accomplish this?
To revert the files to a previous revision you can use
hg revert -r REVISION
This will change your working directory files to what they were at that revison. Then you
will need to commit these changes before pushing.
hg update -r REVISION changes the working directory's parent to be that revision as well as changes the contents of the working directory to that revision. This is not what you want here.
hg update only affects the state of your working directory, not the repository itself. If you want to "undo" the effects of one or more previous revisions, you will need to change the repository by committing a new changeset that reflects those changes. You could do it manually but hg's builtin backout command makes this easy to do. See a brief description here. There is a detailed explanation of backout here.
I have got a question regarding suprepositories. Our project is set up like this:
+ projectA
+ some files
+ dependencyA
+ some files
dependencyA is a subrepository. It was created this way:
cd projectA
mkdir dependencyA
cd dependencyA
hg init
hg pull ssh://hg#somerandomiphere/dependencyA
cd ..
echo dependencyA = ssh://hg#somerandomiphere/dependencyA > .hgsub
hg add
hg commit
hg push
If I make changes to the suprepository, then commit and push them from main project. Both of them will be pushed to the server since its recursive. Now my colleague wants to pull changes from the server. But since nothing was changed in the main project, it wont work. But if I change something in the main project and push it to server. Upon hg pull he will get the newest changeset and if he does hg update then, it will update the subrepository as well. This is expected behaviour.
Now my question would be, if there is a way to pull changes, but only for subrepository without making a new clone of it or what would be the best way to do it.
Subrepository in Mercurial wiki, p. 2.5 "Pull"
The 'pull' command is by default not recursive. This is because
Mercurial won't know which subrepos are required until an update to a
specific changeset is requested. The update will pull the requested
subrepositories and changesets on demand. To get pull and update in
one step, use 'pull --update'.
Note that this matches exactly how 'pull' works without
subrepositories, considering that subrepositories lives in the working
directory:
'hg pull' gives you the upstream changesets but doesn't affect your working directory.
'hg update' updates the contents of your working directory (both in the top repo and in all subrepos)
It might be a good idea to always pull with --update if you have any
subrepositories. That will generally ensure that updates not will miss
any changesets and that update thus not will cause any pulls. If the
pull with update fails due to crossing branches then 'hg update' must
be used to get all the subrepository updates.
What was suggested above works like I thought it would. The real problem was my way of creating a subrepository.
Instead of:
cd projectA
mkdir
dependencyA
cd dependencyA
hg init
hg pull ssh://hg#somerandomiphere/dependencyA
It should have been a simple:
hg clone ssh://hg#somerandomiphere/dependencyA dependencyA
As we know .hgsusbtate will lock the subrepo on specific revision after commit. This is what happened, but (!) doing hg pull in subrepository ended with an error
paths cannot contain dot file components
So this means my subrepo was locked on the revision it was updated after commit and it could not pull changes from its repository due to the error shown above. Why this happened is explained pretty well in this accepted answer.
Solution:
cloning is the way to go
I want to completely delete a Mercurial commit as if it was never entered in the repository and move back to my prior commit.
Is this possible?
If it was your last commit and you haven't pushed it anywhere, you can do that with rollback. Otherwise, no. Not really. Time to change your passwords.
Edit: It has been pointed out that you can clone from an older revision and merge in the changes you want to keep. That's also true, unless you have pushed it to a repo you don't control. Once you push, your data is very likely to be very hard to get back.
You can try to remove mq info about your commit.
For this you need to go File->Settings->Extensions.
There check mq and restart gui.
After that just right click on unneeded commit and
ModifyHistory->Strip
To edit the history I would use the Histedit Extension extension.
hg histedit 45:c3a3a271d11c
However keep in mind this only makes sense in a situation where you have not yet pushed the commits to the public repository, you own the public repository and/or you can account for all the clones out there. If you receive the following error:
abort: can't rebase immutable changeset 43ab8134e7af
It means that Mecurial thinks this is a public changeset (see phases) that has already been pushed - you can force it to be a draft again doing:
hg phase -f -d 45:c3a3a271d11c
I encounter this fairly often. I make a commit and then pull to push. But then there is something incoming that makes my newly made commit unnecessary. A plain hg rollback isn't enough because it only undoes the pull...
This is the thing to do:
hg strip <rev>
Things are painless when you don't push your changesets anywhere.
If it's more than one commit and/or you already pushed it somewhere else, you can clone your repository and specify the last changeset that should be cloned.
See my answer here how to do this:
Mercurial: Fix a borked history
If you only committed locally and didn't push, you can just create a clone locally (as described in my link) and you're done.
If you already pushed to some remote repository, you would have to replace that with your clone.
Of course it depends if you are able (or allowed) to do this.
You can use "hg backout" to do a reverse merge basically. All options are discussed in the freely available book "Mercurial: The Definitive Guide":
http://hgbook.red-bean.com/read/finding-and-fixing-mistakes.html
If using tortoise you can use modify history > strip...
Yes. Unless I am mistaken, as of v2.3 (rel. 2012/08/01) you can use the HisteditExtension with a drop command to drop a commit, along with strip or backout to remove changes.
A simple Google search on the feature: https://www.google.com/webhp#q=histedit+drop
In 2022 I do use evolve extension. It is one of the best extensions for this purpose.
To prune unwanted changeset, if you for example did a quick hack to get the code working:
$ echo 'debug hack' >> file1.c
$ hg commit -m 'debug hack'
Now you have a proper patch you can do hg prune .:
$ hg prune .
1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
working directory is now at 2a39221aaebb
1 changesets pruned
If you push the change to the remote repository you will find only obsolescence markers:
$ hg push
searching for changes
no changes found
remote: 1 new obsolescence markers
To check the changes to your local repo you can pull from the remote one:
$ hg pull
pulling from ssh://userid#server/repo
searching for changes
no changes found
I am looking for best practices to do the following:
When I need to implement a feature or fix a bug, I am creating new Mercurial repository from the main one (a trunk).
Then, within some days, or weeks, I am implementing the task in newly created repository, making commits and periodically merging with trunk. After the code in new repository will pass all code reviews, I should provide a repository with all changes collapsed into single revision.
My common way to do this (rdiff extension should be enabled):
hg clone ~/repos/trunk ~/repos/new-collapsed
cd ~/repos/new-collapsed
hg diff ~/repos/new > new.diff
patch -p1 < new.diff
hg commit
This works almost well except when there are binary files present in the changes from ~/repos/new. Another way could be:
hg clone ~/repos/trunk ~/repos/new-collapsed
cd ~/repos/new-collapsed
hg pull ~/repos/new
hg update
hg rollback
then resolve possible conflicts and manually commit the changes
Both ways look for me somewhat ugly and non-native, so I am looking how this operation could be simplified. I've played with rebase extension, but seems its hg rebase --collapse command does not work with workflow described above.
Any ideas are welcome.
Sounds like a good case for mercurial queues.
I do something similar with the histedit extension.
My workflow is something like:
clone a central repo
commit incremental changes to local repo
clone my local repo to make collapsed repo
hg histedit and select/discard/fold the revisions as needed
hg push the collapsed repo to central repo
pull central repo to local or refresh local from scratch
I ensure that my local repo never gets pushed to the central repo by adding an invalid default-push path to the .hg/hgrc file in the local repo root directory.
Solved: Just add
[diff]
git = True
to your hgrc file, and then use my first solution with rdiff extension, replacing patch with hg import:
hg clone ~/repos/trunk ~/repos/new-collapsed
cd ~/repos/new-collapsed
hg diff ~/repos/new > new.diff
hg import new.diff
hg commit
I have recently switched from Subversion to Mercurial for source control and in doing so have split up one repository into several. I used subrepos to manage the dependencies between repositories. The problem is that pull is not suprepo aware so I have to go into each subrepo and pull changes in order to update a repository. Is there a better way to do this?
pull is not suprepo aware
hg pull should be subrepo aware, provided it is used with the -u (--update) option.
The hg update should, when it comes to subrepos, take them into account:
Whenever newer Mercurial versions encounter this .hgsubstate file when updating your working directory, they'll attempt to pull the specified subrepos and update them to the appropriate state.
Subrepos may also contain their own subrepos and Mercurial will recurse as necessary.
The OP CoreyD adds:
That has not worked for me.
I create two repos /repo and /sub and I clone sub into repo (/repo/sub).
Then I create an .hgsub file in /repo with this a line like this sub = ../sub and commit it.
When I make changes to /sub and then do an update in /repo /repo/sub is unchanged.
Am I doing something wrong?
That looks about right:
SubRepos or submodules (for Git) are all about referening a precise configuration (changeset ref for hg, or commit ref for Git, as explained in this SO question)
When you change anything outside of /repo, you don't change the .hgsubstate file within /repo recording the exact configuration (changeset reference).
Hence no change at all.
You could rather do your /sub changes directly in /repo/sub, commit them, then commit /repo.
Then, a clone of /repo would have the new configuration.