I have a problem with saving different config files in my Mercurial repository. For example, I have 2 branches - dev and testing. For each, I have my Jenkinsfile (configuration of Jenkins pipeline). It also could be any other configuration files (DB config, other systems configs) that are different between branches. Each time when I merge testing with dev I should merge the Jenkinsfile manually. How could I solve this problem? I wanna save the history of my config files and don't wanna have any problems with merging. Is there any approach to solve this routine problem?
This could do the trick:
When you hit the merge conflict (obviously, you will see conflict every time when merging these two branches with a config file with the same name but different content) you can perform a re-merge only for that config file while also using the --tool flag to tell the "merge machine" that we want to keep the local version of this file, by running:
hg resolve path/to/config/file --re-merge --tool ':local'
Or short version: hg res path/to/config/file --re-merge -t ':local'
Note: hg merge also has this --tool option but be careful using that because it would apply that merge-tool to every file that will be merged in that operation.
To know more about merge tools, run: hg help merge-tools
Mercurial a lot of time have concepts of custom merge tools and merge-patterns (see MergeTools.rc and MergePatterns.rc)
I.e. you can for your Jenkinsfile (even it haven't unique perrepository extension, give it) custom mergetool, which will do just hg merge --tool internal:local
Related
I am very new with git and repositorys and I have a problem. Me and my collegue were working on the same file.
He commited and pushed his changes.
I commited my changes
I pulled
Now I have conflicts and I want to solve them. How can I overwrite the conflicts so that my changes are on the file? I am working with Eclipse.
There is no easy way to resolve conflicts. But tools are available to make the process a little easier. Anyhow you will have to decide and manually make the changes so that both of your changes are available in the latest file.
Try: git mergetool
If you both edited separate parts of the file then the tool will automatically merge whereas if you both have edited the same part then some manual interaction is needed.
If you want Your changes you can use:
git fetch -p
git merge --ours
This will merge the remote with your local branches and in case of any conflict - use your version of code.
Quite often I have a situation like the following:
some Hg repository with a bunch of configuration files that are shared
some configuration files contain passwords, that should not be shared, they are local to the user
I would like to keep a version history on these files, but they will only occasionally be updated. It is annoying if every time you do a commit or merge or update you have to remember that you do not want to commit your locally changed password.
How can I freeze a file in the repository (and conversely, for the occasional legitimate update, unfreeze it) so that it does not appear in the commit list, but does appear as versioned in the repository and everyone can share a base copy?
This question gets asked a lot, and the answer is always the same: there's no good way to do what you want. A file that's tracked is tracked for all changes.
The setup everyone settles on is committing a configurationfile.example to the repo where changes everyone needs are shared, and add configurationfile to your ignore. If you're savvy you then have your launch script copy configurationfile.example to configuration location if it doesn't already exists. If your configuration format is flexible enough to support an include (most are these days) you have you configurationfile committed and have it do an include of a non-tracked (ignored) configurationfile.local where people override things. This is how everyone does it in both git and Mercurial.
-X option for commit, none (easy) for merge
-X --exclude PATTERN [+] exclude names matching the given patterns
i.e most times you commit hg ci -X FILENAME, sometimes - pure hg ci. You can define hg ci -X FILENAME as new alias and use two different commands for different commits
In case of merges you can try to define for config-file special merge-tool (provably internal:local or internal:fail)
Anyway, you selected wrong and error-prone method of storing local configs as shared common files. (Viable) alternatives may include (in order to name a few)
Config.TEMPLATE in repository and modified for local needs hgignore'd Config
LocalBranch, in which you store code with location-specific changes
MQ extension (somehow related to 1-st solution) - repository stored "vanilla" config, all local-only changes placed in MQ-patch
I want to use Mercurial for a email-based sync system (see this question).
I have played around with sending bundles back and forth ad applying them to the repositories to be synced. But I often get merge conflicts which I have to resolve manually.
But they could be resolved easily automatically: I just want the newer file to replace the older one.
Is it possible to set up a merge-tool in Mercurial that does exactly that: When I hg pull a bundle it updates to the file with the newer time stamp?
When you pull or unbundle new changesets in repository must not intersect with done in parallel (you'll get new head only) - I can't see why you can have merge on pull (uncommited local changes? Commit before pull!)
If your merge-conflicts appear on merge heads (when you merge local head into tip after pull) and you prefer to have tip version of conflicted files and abandon local changes you can use merge with --tool=internal:local option
If you prefer dummy-merge, i.e abandon all local changes from all files, you can use this trick from Mercurial wiki
So i've made the switch from CVS to mercurial for my website.
The biggest issue I am having is that if i'm working on some files that I don't want to commit, I just save them.. I then have other files I want to push to the server, however if someone else has made changes to the repository, and I pull them down.. It asks me to merge or rebase.. either of these options will cause me to lose my local changes that I have not committed.
I've read that I should clone the repository for each project on my local host and merge it into the live when it's ready to do so. This not only seems tedious, but also takes a long time as it's a large repository.
Are there better solutions to this?
I would have hoped that Mercurial would see that I haven't committed my changes (even though I have changed the file from what's on the server) so it'd just overlook the file.
Any input on this would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!
Also, i'm using the hg eclipse plugin to work on my files and push/pull from the server.
hg shelve is your friend here I think.
which comes from the shelve extention (maybe - see below)
from the overview:
The shelve extension provides the
shelve command to lets you choose
which parts of the changes in a
working directory you'd like to set
aside temporarily, at the granularity
of patch hunks. You can later restore
the shelved patch hunks using the
unshelve command.
The shelve extension has been adapted
from Mercurial's RecordExtension.
or maybe its the attic extension
This module deals with a set of
patches in the folder .hg/attic. At
any time you can shelve your current
working copy changes there or unshelve
a patch from the folder.
it seems to have the same syntax as the shelve extension, so I'm not certain which one I've used
I second #Sam's answer. However, if you prefer to use standard Mercurial, a simple workflow is to
save your working dir changes in a temporary file,
sync your working dir with a specific revision, then
push, pull, merge .. whatever you want to do and which requires a clean working copy, and
get back your changes from the temporary file into the working dir.
For instance:
$ hg diff > snapshot.patch # save your uncommited changes
$ hg up -C # get a clean working copy
$ hg pull # do things ..
$ hg merge # .. you need a clean ..
$ hg commit -m "merge" # .. working copy for
$ hg import snapshot.patch # get back your uncommited work
First, are you working from the commandline, or using something like Tortoise?
If you're working from the commandline, and you've done a pull, mercurial will not ask you to do anything, as it merely updates your local repository.
If you then do an hg update and have local changes, it should do what you're used to from CVS. It will update to the tip of the current branch, and attempt to merge your outstanding changes in. There are some caveats to that, so refer to the official docs at http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/hg.1.html#update.
Also, for temporarily storing changes, I would recommend MQ over shelve. Shelve only provides one storage area, whereas MQ provides as many as you need. MQ takes some getting used to, but worth the investment.
I used SVN/CVS for a long time just as a place where my code stored is. But now I came to a point where I need a "best way to do".
We have several branches.
For Example:
Release1 (shipped),
Release2 (not finished, contains new features),
Fix1 (contains bug fixes for Release1 and will be shipped after customer tests),
Fix2/trunk (The trunk is our current development state with Fix2).
And now we come to my problem.
I cannot say if Release 2 is shipped before Fix1 or Fix2 and I have now a Hotfix for Release1. Just a few files, but it was urgent.
What is now the best way to get the changes in all branches?
Auto merge will also merge differences that are branch specific. Is the best way to merge it by hand?
There has to be a way like: I mark my change with ID "abc" and say merge only changes of abc in all branches.
Btw. I am using Eclipse with Subversive. Maybe a tool outside eclipse will be better!?
I use Subclipse plugin for Eclipse. You can probably do this with svn command line also. If your fix is isolated to a single revision number then you can merge just that revision to the trunk(or any other branch).
branch1 (revision 103) -hotfix
trunk (revision 100)
Using Subclipse, you can right click the file then choose "Team"->"Merge." Select either "Merge a range of revision" or "Merge two different trees" option then provide the source url and revision to merge to the target tree.
From command line... given that your current working directory is the trunk:
svn merge -r 103:103 http://svn/branches/branch1
You probably can't merge to multiple branches and that's probably better because you want to be careful with the merge process.