I recently converted a CVS repository to Mercurial. From the looks of it, everything went perfect. Except that every end-of-line character is in Unix style and I want them in Windows style.
I know the hg convert command can be used to "convert" a Mercurial repository to a Mercurial repository. Can I use it to do nothing on the repos but fix the line endings?
How they're stored in the repo isn't terribly important since you do your actual work with the checked out working directory, whose line endings you can control at update time using either of these extensions:
Win32TextExtension
hg-eol extension
more detail is available here: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/EOLTranslationPlan
I don't think there's an easy way to get hg convert to do what you want (short of writing code that plugs into convert's code. Unfortunately, convert's hg-to-hg conversions are also not entirely clean, due to the generalized model convert has. This may not be a problem if you're coming from CVS, though.
One way is to use whatever tool that normalizes line endings and run it on every file in a checked out copy then commit every file. But that should be considered a last resort solution since it will make the history "dirty" (files will appear to have been changed when they practically have not been).
Related
I'm trying to compare and merge MySQL WorkBench files in SourceTree, and in order to do so I created a small shell script that extracts the content of the .mwb file and strips some useless counters from the XML file inside it.
Then I added this line to .gitconfig in the project's root:
[diff "mwbdiff"]
textconv = mwb-diff
and this in the .gitattributes:
*.mwb diff=mwbdiff
Now, if I change something on a .mwb, then "git diff" on console shows the correct differences, and SourceTree does it, too:
The problem is that if I try to do the same on already committed versions, I get nothing:
Same result if I try to merge. I still get the right output if I try to run GIT from the console like this:
git diff develop feature/four -- test.mwb
but if I try to merge, then I get unsolved conflicts and I don't know how to proceed.
I also tried to move the .gitattributes and .gitconfig changes into the global variables, and it actually works in the console, but it didn't help SourceTree.
I suspect it has something to do with the binary preview in SourceTree (Mac version), if I could disable it...
What am I missing? How can I solve this problem?
I think that this is not supported.
So to avoid calling git diff when it will ultimately just produce no output, SourceTree pre-detects whether files are binary or text on the disk, identified by whether in a quick sample of the initial chunk of the file contains a couple of binary zero's in succession. I can only assume that the odt formats include this sequence, so SourceTree treats them as binary. On Mac we have a binary preview pane which displays before/after of supported binary files but we haven't ported that to Windows yet.
At the moment we don't support your case and may not add it in the near future, because it's a pretty rare thing to do and most people would just see a performance penalty when git diff fails and we then fall back on other techniques. We'll keep this logged for possible future support.
Source: JIRA - textconv diff not generated
So in other words, SourceTree specifically avoids calling git diff for files that SourceTree considers to be binary. That means that any textconvs don't get called at all.
The only way to work around this would be to trick SourceTree into thinking that your file isn't binary. Which is probably not feasible.
I've been having some problems with mercurial and kiln, maybe you can point me in the right direction. Sometimes when I commit the files they get renamed as Upper Case 'Assembly.NameSpace' will be changed to 'ASSEMBLY.NAMESPACE' and if I try to commit after making changes to them they appear as not being tracked (Side note I found out about the renamed files after I committed).
No matter what I do they just wont be tracked. I tried add using the console, using hg workbench and nothing seems to work. For it to work I need to forget the files, then commit, then add them again and then commit, which it really sucks for me.
Is it possible the files already exist in the repository with different case? "Case Folding" is a problem for any system that needs to work on both systems that are truly case sensitive and those that are only case retentive. Mercurial has done a lot of work to degrade as well as possible when a case folding problem arises and there's a lot of detail about it in the Mercurial wiki.
On what OS are you working?
When you do that initial add of the files are you using a wildcard or specifying them by name?
Do the files on disk actually change case when you add them? Mercurial only alters files in the working director (the stuff outside of .hg) on update, so it seem pretty much impossible that just doing hg add; hg commit would change the case of a file in the working directory.
Upgrading to latest version will fix the problem.
I have converted a CVS repository to Mercurial, but the carriage returns are converted from CRLF (Windows style) to LF (Unix style). However, I want CRLFs in the repository! I realise that you can combat this problem with Mercurial extensions win32text and eol. But I would really prefer to have the repository converted with CRLFs in the first place.
I would like to hear if anyone has succeeded in this endeavour!
Hrm, I've not heard people say it does that before, but I've never tried to put CRLF in a repo before either. I'd guess it's not the mercurial convert doing the line ending change so much as it's the cvs export tool that it chains off to. I
Try using cvs2svn or cvs2git as an intermediary step as recommended here: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/RepositoryConversion#CVS
This is not quite a specifc question, and more me like for a criticism of my current approach.
I would like to include the program version number in the program I am developing. This is not a commercial product, but a research application so it is important to know which version generated the results.
My method works as follows:
There is a "pre-commit" hook in my .hg/hgrc file link to version_gen.sh
version_gen.sh consists solely of:
hg parent --template "r{rev}_{date|shortdate}" > version.num
In the makefile, the line version="%__VERSION__% in the main script is replaced with the content of the version.num file.
Are there better ways of doing this? The only real short coming I can see is that if you only commit a specfic file, version.num will be updated, but it won't be commited, and if I tried to add always committing that file, that would result in an infite loop (unless I created some temp file to indicate I was already in a commit, but that seems ugly...).
The problem
As you've identified, you've really created a Catch-22 situation here.
You can't really put meaningful information in the version.num file until the changes are committed and because you are storing version.num in the repository, you can't commit changes to the repository until you have populated the version.num file.
My solution
What I would suggest is:
Get rid of the "pre-commit" hook and hg forget the version.num file.
Add version.num to your .hgignore file.
Adjust version_gen.sh to consist of:
hg parent --template "r{node|short}_{date|shortdate}" > version.num
In the makefile, make sure version_gen.sh is run before version.num is used to set the version parameter.
My reasons
As #Ry4an suggests, getting the build system to insert revision information into the software at build time, using information from the Version Control System is a much better option. The only problem with this is if you try to compile the code from an hg archive of the repository, where the build system cannot extract the relevant information.
I would be inclined to discourage this however - in my own build system, the build failed if revision information couldn't be extracted.
Also, as #Kai Inkinen suggests, using the revision number is not portable. Rev 21 on one machine might be rev 22 on another. While this may not be a problem right now, it could be in the future, if you start colaborating with other people.
Finally, I explain my reasons for not liking the Keyword extension in a question of mine, which touches on similar issues to your own question:
I looked at Mercurials Keyword extension, since it seemed like the obvious solution. However the more I looked at it and read peoples opinions, the more that I came to the conclusion that it wasn't the right thing to do.
I also remember the problems that keyword substitution has caused me in projects at previous companies. ...
Also, I don't particularly want to have to enable Mercurial extensions to get the build to complete. I want the solution to be self contained, so that it isn't easy for the application to be accidentally compiled without the embedded version information just because an extension isn't enabled or the right helper software hasn't been installed.
Then in comments to an answer which suggested using the keyword extension anyway:
... I rejected using the keyword extension as it would be too easy to end up with the string "$Id$" being compiled into the executable. If keyword expansion was built into mercurial rather than an extension, and on by default, I might consider it, but as it stands it just wouldn't be reliable. – Mark Booth
A don't think that there can be a more reliable solution. What if someone accidentally damages .hg or builds not from a clone but from an archive? – Mr.Cat
#Mr.Cat - I don't think there can be a less reliable solution than the keywords extension. Anywhere you haven't explicitly enabled the extension (or someone has disabled it) then you get the literal string "$ID$" compiled into the object file without complaint. If mercurial or the repo is damaged (not sure which you meant) you need to fix that first anyway. As for hg archive, my original solution fails to compile if you try to build it from an archive! That is precisely what I want. I don't want any source to be compiled into our apps without it source being under revision control! – Mark Booth
What you are trying to do is called Keyword Expansion, which is not supported in Mercurial core.
You can integrate that expansion in make file, or (simpler) with the Keyword extension.
This extension allows the expansion of RCS/CVS-like and user defined keys in text files tracked by Mercurial.
Expansion takes place in the working directory or/and when creating a distribution using "hg archive"
That you use a pre-commit hook is what's concerning. You shouldn't be putting the rest of version_gen.sh into the source files thesemves, just into the build/release artifacts which you can do more accurately with an 'update' hook.
You don't want the Makefile to actually change in the repo with each commit, that just makes merges hell. You want to insert the version after checking out the files in advance of a build, which is is what an update hook does.
In distributed systems like Mercurial, the actual "version number" does not necessarily mean the same thing in every environment. Even if this is a single person project, and you are really careful with having only your central repo, you would still probably want to use the sha1-sum instead, since that is truly unique for the given repository state. The sha1 can be fetched through the template {node}
As a suggestion, I think that a better workflow would be to use tags instead, which btw are also local to your repository until you push them upstream. Don't write your number into a file, but instead tag your release code with a meaningful tag like
RELEASE_2
or
RELEASE_2010-04-01
or maybe script this and use the template to create the tag?
You can then add the tag to your non-versioned (in .hgignore) version.num file to be added into the build. This way you can give meaningful names to the releases and you tie the release to the unique identifier.
We are just beginning to learn and evaluate Mercurial, due to an increasing number of nightmare merges, and various other problems we've had with SVN lately.
A client wants us to pull down a live copy of their site, do some SEO work on it, and push it back to them. They have no source control at all. I figure this is a great project to work on with Mercurial. Instead of putting it into our SVN and exporting when we are done, we'll use Mercurial... But right away it seems I have some problem :)
They have a file called ---.config which seems to cause our Mercurial to barf. It just can't commit that file. I've created the repo and committed everything else, but I just can't get this one file committed.
We are running on Windows 2008 x64 with TortoiseHG 1.0.
I suppose I could ignore the file since it is unlikely we'll need to work with it, but still - I'd like to learn how to use Mercurial a bit better. Is there a way around this?
EDIT: here is the error message:
('commit', GetoptError('option ---.config not recognized', '-.config'))
This happens when I hit the "commit" button in TortoiseHG with that file selected.
Not sure about hg, but most command line tools treat anything after a -- as a non-option. This is helpful if you have a filename that starts with -- or a wildcard that picks up such a file; try prefixing your filename or wildcard with --, e.g., hg command -- *.config.
The problem is that TortoiseHg did not escape filenames correctly when calling hg. When a filename starts with --, one must take extra care when using it on command lines.
I have just sent a patch which will hopefully make it into TortoiseHg 1.0.1, which is scheduled to be released later today.