I have a set up that looks like this:
- MainRepository
- Folder1 (nested submodule)
- Folder2 (double - nested submodule)
- Folder3 (nested submodule)
- Folder4 (nested submodule)
When I make a change to the double-nested folder I have to stage-commit-push on three different levels:
Inside of the Folder2
Then inside of the Folder1
And finally from the MainRepository
The problem is that a project I'm currently working is very big and it is time consuming doing it manually every time. Is there a way to stage and push the same commit on all 3 levels recursively
Currently I'm not able to stage the same commit for each level.
I've tried:
- git submodule foreach --recursive git add.
- git submodule foreach --recursive git commit -m "name_of_commit"
But it returns the following because there are submodules(i.e Folder3/Folder4) that don't have any commits:
fatal: run_command returned non-zero status
Related
Sometimes, We meet a situation that remote source code fetched by a recipe need to be modified so that suit a specific machine.
How do we create a patch for remote source code locally? After that everytime we build the recipe (even clean it all) we can patch the remote source code automatically.
For example, I have a special machine with architecture A which is not common, so the remote source code need to be modified so that support architecture A.
Suppose there was a file called utils.h (which is code that we fetched by example.bb from remote git repository)
#if defined(__x86_64__) || \
defined(__mips__) || \
defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__ppc__) || defined(__ppc64__) \
#define SOME_FUNCTIONALITY 1
Apparently I need to add archtecture A support in the file.
#if defined(__x86_64__) || \
defined(__mips__) || \
defined(__powerpc__) || defined(__ppc__) || defined(__ppc64__) || \
defined(__A__) \
#define SOME_FUNCTIONALITY 1
But if we just modified like that, next time we execute
bitbake -c cleanall example
bitbake example
then we get a unchanged copies again(which means we have to modify it again).
How do we create a Add-architecture-A-support.patch locally so that we can patch the remote source code automatically?
This is a simple one from answers.
(Note: If there was no git in the source code directory, before modifying the source code, you need to create a git repository and commit all in the top directory of the source code.)
git init # create a git repository
git add .
git commit -m "First commit" # first commit
After change the utils.h as above, we can check the git status. It usually looks like that.
$ git status
HEAD detached from 87b933c420
Changes not staged for commit:
(use "git add <file>..." to update what will be comitted)
(use "git checkout -- <file>..." to discard changes in working directory)
modified: ../../utils.h
...
no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a")
Then we add and commit the change locally (usually we don't have the permission to push to upper stream).
$ git add utils.h
$ git commit -m "Patch test"
After that we can use git to create a patch for the recent commit.
$ git show >Add-architecture-A-support.patch
It will creat a patch in the current directory with contents looks like that
commit a79e523...
Author: 杨...
Date: ...
Patch test
diff --git a/somedir/utils.h b/somedir/utils.h
index 20bfd36c84..
--- a/somedir/utils.h
+++ b/somedir/utils.h
...
+ defined(__A__) \
...
Then we can move the patch to the local layer where the recipe stayed.
recipe-example
|-- example
| |-- Add-architecture-A-support.patch
|-- example.bb
And add the patch in example.bb with this.
SRC_URI += "\
file://Add-architecture-A-support.patch \
"
Work finished. (Also, if want to undo the local commit after creating the patch, you can use git reset HEAD^ utils.h. emmm, I think so, maybe there are some faults, just google it)
I have two directories on two different computers - machine A (Windows) and machine B (OSX) - and I want to keep the two directories via Mercurial in sync. [*]
The restriction is that the two machines are not connected via LAN/WAN; the only way to move data between them is via email. So I thought emailing Mercurial bundles as deltas could do the trick.
My current workflow is roughly this (using a local tag lcb for the latest change bundle):
Say I work on machine A. At the end of the day I do:
hg commit -A -m "changes 123"
hg bundle --base lcb bundle_123.hg
hg tag --local -f lcb --rev tip
finally then I email that bundle to machine B.
Then sitting at machine B I do
hg unbundle bundle_123.hg
hg merge
hg commit -A -m "remote changes 123"
hg tag --local -f lcb --rev tip
Now I'm working on machine B and at the end of the day I do what's listed under 1., but on machine B. And the cycle continues...
However, I'm worry this system is not robust enough:
In-between changes: What happens when after creating a bundle (Step 1) and before applying it remotely (Step 2) a changes occurrs on the remote machine B? I had a case where it just overwrote the changes with the new bundle without conflict warning or merge suggestion.
Double-applying of bundle: What happens when by accident a bundle is applied twice? Would be needed to record the applied bundles somehow with local tags?
Or is there another better workflow to transfer Mercurial deltas via email?
[*] From the answer to a superuser question I figured that Mercurial might be the most feasible way to do this.
In-between changes: What happens when after creating a bundle (Step 1) and before applying it remotely (Step 2) a changes occurs on the remote machine B? I had a case where it just overwrote the changes with the new bundle without conflict warning or merge suggestion.
If a change is made on machine B, then this change will have been made in parallel with the changes you bundled from machine A. It doesn't really matter if the changes are made before or after you create the bundle (time-wise), it only matters that the changes on machine B don't have the head from machine A as their ancestor.
In other words, the world looks like this when the two machines are in sync:
A: ... [a]
B: ... [a]
You then create some new commits on machine A:
A: ... [a] --- [b] --- [c]
B: ... [a]
You bundle using [a] as base, so you get a bundle with [b] and [c]. Let us now say that someone (perhaps yourself) makes a commit on machine B:
A: ... [a] --- [b] --- [c]
( bundled )
B: ... [a] --- [x]
So far nothing has been exchanged between the two repositories, so this is just a normal case of people working in parallel. This is the norm in a distributed version control system — people working in parallel is that creates the need for merge commits.
The need for a merge is not evident in either repository at this point, they both have linear histories. However, when you unbundle on machine B, you see the divergence:
A: ... [a] --- [b] --- [c]
( bundled )
B: ... [a] --- [x]
\
[b] --- [c]
( unbundled )
It is helpful to realize that hg unbundle is exactly like hg pull, except that it can be done offline. That is, the data stored in a bundle is really just the data that hg pull would have transferred if you had had an online connection between the two repositories.
You would now proceed by merging the two heads [x] and [c] to create [y] on machine B:
A: ... [a] --- [b] --- [c]
B: ... [a] --- [x] --- [y]
\ /
[b] --- [c]
on machine B your last bundle was created with [a] as a base. However, you also know that machine A has commit [c], so you can specify that as an additional base if you like:
$ hg bundle --base a --base c stuff-from-machine-b.hg
That will put [x] and [y] into the bundle:
bundle: (a) --- [x] --- [y]
/
(c)
Here I use (a) and (c) to denote the required bases of the bundle. You can only unbundle this bundle if you have both [a] and [c] in your repository. If you leave out the second base (only use [a]), you will also bundle [b] and [c]:
bundle: (a) --- [x] --- [y]
\ /
[b] --- [c]
Here you included everything except [a] in the bundle. Bundling too much is okay, as we will see next.
Double-applying of bundle: What happens when by accident a bundle is applied twice? Would be needed to record the applied bundles somehow with local tags?
Applying a bundle twice is exactly like running hg pull twice: nothing happens the second time. When unbundling, Mercurial looks in the bundle and imports the missing changesets. So if you unbundle twice, there is nothing to do the second time.
Initial state
A>hg log --template "{rev}:{node|short} \"{desc}\" - files: {files}\n"
2:415231dbafb8 "Added C" - files: C.txt
1:6d9709a42687 "Added B" - files: B.txt
0:e26d1e14507e "Initial data" - files: .hgignore A.txt
B>hg log --template "{rev}:{node|short} \"{desc}\" - files: {files}\n"
1:72ef13990d0d "Edited A" - files: A.txt
0:e26d1e14507e "Initial data" - files: .hgignore A.txt
i.e:
Identical repos diverged at revision 1 at both sides: independent changes appeared
Test for case 1 - parallel changes
72ef13990d0d in B doesn't interfere with 6d9709a42687:415231dbafb8 in A
A>hg bundle --base e26d1e14507e ..\bundle1-2.hg
2 changesets found
B>hg pull ..\bundle1-2.hg
pulling from ..\bundle1-2.hg
searching for changes
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 2 changesets with 2 changes to 2 files (+1 heads)
(run 'hg heads' to see heads, 'hg merge' to merge)
because B had own child for e26d1e14507e, pulling from bundle added additional head (and anonymous branch for changesets from A)
B>hg glog --template "{rev}:{node|short} \"{desc}\" - files: {files}\n"
o 3:415231dbafb8 "Added C" - files: C.txt
|
o 2:6d9709a42687 "Added B" - files: B.txt
|
| # 1:72ef13990d0d "Edited A" - files: A.txt
|/
o 0:e26d1e14507e "Initial data" - files: .hgignore A.txt
Test for case 2 - applying bundle twice
I know apriori, that existing in repo changesets will not be pulled again (and prefer unified style of hg pull from bundle instead of hg unbundle), but show it
B>hg pull ..\bundle1-2.hg
pulling from ..\bundle1-2.hg
searching for changes
no changes found
Additional benefit from pull's behavior - you can don't worry about moving base changeset for bundle and always use one, oldest point of divergence - it will (slightly) increase size of bundle (slightly - because by default bundle is bzip2-compressed archive), but also it will it guarantees the inclusion of all child changesets into bundle and pulling all missing (and only missing) changesets in destination repository
And, it any case, even unbundle the same bundle twice will not have any backfires.
Same bundle in same repo B, attempt to unbundle already pulled bundle
B>hg unbundle ..\bundle1-2.hg
adding changesets
adding manifests
adding file changes
added 0 changesets with 0 changes to 2 files
(run 'hg update' to get a working copy)
In my github repo's readme.md file I have a Travis-CI badge. I use the following link:
https://travis-ci.org/joegattnet/joegattnet_v3.png?branch=staging
The obvious problem is that the branch is hardcoded. Is it possible to use some sort of variable so that the branch is the one currently being viewed?
Not that I know of.
GitHub support confirms (through OP Joe Gatt 's comment)
The only way to do this would be to pass the link through my own service which would use the github's http referrer header to determine which branch is being referenced and then fetch the appropriate image from Travis CI
I would rather make one Travis-CI badge per branch, for the reader to choose or consider the appropriate when seeing the README.md.
Update 2016 (3 years later): while nothing has changed on the GitHub side, fedorqui reports in the workaround mentioned in "Get Travis Shield on Github to Reflect Selected Branch Status" by Andrie.
Simply display all the branches and their respective TravisCI badges.
If you have only two or three branches, that could be enough.
I worked around this issue with a git pre-commit hook that re-writes the Travis line in the README.md with the current branch. An example of usage and pre-commit (Python) code (for the question as asked) are below.
Usage
dandye$ git checkout -b feature123 origin/master
Branch feature123 set up to track remote branch master from origin.
Switched to a new branch 'feature123'
dandye$ echo "* Feature123" >> README.md
dandye$ git add README.md
dandye$ git commit -m "Added Feature123"
Starting pre-commit hook...
Replacing:
[][travis]
with:
[][travis]
pre-commit hook complete.
[feature123 54897ee] Added Feature123
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
dandye$ cat README.md |grep "Build Status"
[][travis]
dandye$
Python code for the pre-commit code
dandye$ cat .git/hooks/pre-commit
#!/usr/bin/python
"""
Referencing current branch in github readme.md[1]
This pre-commit hook[2] updates the README.md file's
Travis badge with the current branch. Gist at[4].
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18673694/referencing-current-branch-in-github-readme-md
[2] http://www.git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Customizing-Git-Git-Hooks
[3] https://docs.travis-ci.com/user/status-images/
[4] https://gist.github.com/dandye/dfe0870a6a1151c89ed9
"""
import subprocess
# Hard-Coded for your repo (ToDo: get from remote?)
GITHUB_USER="joegattnet"
REPO="joegattnet_v3"
print "Starting pre-commit hook..."
BRANCH=subprocess.check_output(["git",
"rev-parse",
"--abbrev-ref",
"HEAD"]).strip()
# String with hard-coded values
# See Embedding Status Images[3] for alternate formats (private repos, svg, etc)
# [][travis]
# Output String with Variable substitution
travis="[![Build Status](https://travis-ci.org/" \
"{GITHUB_USER}/{REPO}.png?" \
"branch={BRANCH})][travis]\n".format(BRANCH=BRANCH,
GITHUB_USER=GITHUB_USER,
REPO=REPO)
sentinel_str="[![Build Status]"
readmelines=open("README.md").readlines()
with open("README.md", "w") as fh:
for aline in readmelines:
if sentinel_str in aline and travis != aline:
print "Replacing:\n\t{aline}\nwith:\n\t{travis}".format(
aline=aline,
travis=travis)
fh.write(travis)
else:
fh.write(aline)
subprocess.check_output(["git", "add", "README.md" ])
print "pre-commit hook complete."
I updated the work of Dan Dye so it's now able to change any git variable into a readme. It also works now with python 3. For example, handling badges by branch for Github actions:
[](https://github.com/{{ repository.name }}/actions/workflows/integration-tests.yaml?query=branch%3A{{ current.branch }})
And in your pre-commit file add:
.githooks/replace_by_git_vars.py readme.md README.md -v
-v displays the available variables and more
https://gist.github.com/jclaveau/af2271b9fdf05f7f1983f492af5592f8
Thanks a lot for the solution and inspiration!
The best solution for me was to create a server where I send a query with username and repo's name and get a svg image with the build status for all branches.
i am about to clone code from svn repo (on centos) using git svn clone -s svn://xxx, then it is interrupted for strange problems, the error message is as follows:
Following parent with do_switch
Successfully followed parent
Use of uninitialized value in concatenation (.) or string at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/SVN/Core.pm line 584.
Network connection closed unexpectedly: at /usr/libexec/git-core/git-svn line 2693
then i continue this clone process using
time git svn fetch -r HEAD
all the things seems goes well, and succeed to clone that svn repo at last:
W: -empty_dir: trunk/src/os/win32/ngx_gui.c
W: -empty_dir: trunk/src/os/win32/ngx_gui.h
W: -empty_dir: trunk/src/os/win32/ngx_gui_resources.h
W: -empty_dir: trunk/src/os/win32/ngx_shared.h
W: -empty_dir: trunk/src/os/win32/ngx_types.h
r4817 = 7b58fc00b5b8ebb0544053ecf63e53b28935f15b (refs/remotes/trunk)
Auto packing the repository for optimum performance. You may also
run "git gc" manually. See "git help gc" for more information.
Counting objects: 12449, done.
Compressing objects: 100% (12177/12177), done.
Writing objects: 100% (12449/12449), done.
Total 12449 (delta 9475), reused 0 (delta 0)
Checked out HEAD:
svn://svn.nginx.org/nginx/trunk r4817
real 0m9.630s
user 0m6.015s
sys 0m1.870s
the strange issue is that there is no tags in my local git repo which is cloned from svn repo:
[root#home nginx]# git branch
* master
[root#home nginx]# git tag // no tags at all:(
[root#home nginx]# svn ls svn://svn.nginx.org/nginx/branches | wc -l
7
[root#home nginx]# svn ls svn://svn.nginx.org/nginx/tags | wc -l
388
in fact there are 388 tags in the svn repo, so how to fix my local .git repo?
should i have to restart to git clone from the remote svn server?
i have tried many times, with the same problem:(
Basically git-svn doesn't support tags as Git tags. In order to convert SVN tags to Git tags you may use:
SubGit (+maybe svnsync if you have no access to the server with SVN repository)
git-svn + command for references update:
"git update-ref refs/tags/TAGNAME refs/remotes/tags/TAGNAME"
SmartGit, if you want some UI and not writing a script
But note: only the 1st and the 3rd solutions allow you to push tags to the server to be conerted to SVN tags. With git-svn you should use additional "git svn branch" command.
How do I get the Root :tree_sha of a GitHub repository via the GitHub API?
The GitHib API help pages don't seem to explain this critical piece of information:
http://develop.github.com/p/object.html
Can get the contents of a tree by tree
SHA
tree/show/:user/:repo/:tree_sha
To get a listing of the root tree for
the facebox project from our commit
listing, we can call this:
$ curl
http://github.com/api/v2/yaml/tree/show/defunkt/facebox/a47803c9ba26213ff194f042ab686a7749b17476
Each commit contains the sha of the entire tree as of that commit.
Use the API to get a JSON object representing the master branch.
https://api.github.com/repos/:owner/:repo/branches/master
That branch's last commit includes the tree's sha that I think you're asking for.
This bit of code demonstrates how to get the head_tree_sha in Python.
import requests
token = '0...f'
key = {'Authorization':'token '+token}
master = requests.get('https://api.github.com/repos/'+owner+'/' + repo '/branches/master', headers=key)
master = master.json()
head_tree_sha = master['commit']['commit']['tree']['sha']
https://developer.github.com/v3/git/commits/
http://develop.github.com/p/commits.html
The commit tells you its tree sha.
[EDIT]
If you want the tree sha of a subfolder cd into the parent folder of the one you're interested in and run:
git ls-tree HEAD
If you want Root tree sha:
git show HEAD --format=raw
1st line has commit sha
2nd line has tree sha
I'm not sure about the GitHub API — however if you want just the hash you can use this command in your clone:
git show HEAD --format=%T | head -1
Or use %t for the abbreviated hash.