I use GitKraken and would like to search/filter the repo history to locate commits involving certain files or (sub)paths.
I do can use CTRL+P and type the name in fuzzy finder and then get the file history but that brings me with only one branch-related history. And doesn't work for folders. So this is not enough.
My company is an 'enterprise monster' scale so I'd like to see a file or folder being affected on multiple branches at the same time, like it e.g. is available in TortoiseGit.
If the answer is 'not possible' - can someone point me to how they get feature requests (my feedback seemed not being prioritized high enough for such a simple and intuitive feature :) )?
Related
Upon brief Google and SO search, I couldn't find any info on this. I am looking at this Github repo which hasn't been updated for years, but there are many forks that are still being developed actively. Is there any way to search through commit messages from different forks of this Github repo network?
Beside the Google search already mentioned, another more precise alternative, if that repo is not too big, is to:
list all the forks with this API GET /repos/:owner/:repo/forks
clone them, and do a git grep in each of those local clones.
That way, you are sure to have a complete search.
See also the python frost-nzcr4/find_forks script.
View the Developer Tools while you're loading the repo network page. In the log you'll notice there's two urls - "meta" and "chunk".
Meta is the (json) list of all the users who are in the network and various properties needed to draw the graph, and "chunk" is the commit log from all the users in the graph, which is used to render the tooltips that come up.
Save these outputs and use your favourite text editor / command line tool to search the commit messages.
I am using mercurial via tortoiseHg (windows) as a source control management tool.
I am used to merge using beyond a compare. Today, I have to perform a very complex merge and I just discovered a new feature (my client was updated some days ago) that is extremely annoying.
When I have a conflit and ask Mercurial to take the "other" file and keep the original in a .orig file, the .orig is added with <<<<<<< local and >>>>>>> other, but more than this, the other part is merged into the original one !!!
The two parts are then unaligned and it's impossible to guarantee that the merge is OK because you have to review it line by line with no help from the comparision tool. (see screen below).
http://s13.postimg.org/yor6gno47/Untitled.jpg
I want to disable this feature, but so far, I am unable to do it. Thanks so much for help as this is furthermore blocking my work.
Regards.
The launching of a specific merge tool isn't something Mercurial controls. It does, however, have a robust mechanism for Merge Tool Configuration that allows you to provide a preference order and it will use the first one it can find. The builders of various Mercurial installation packages (ubuntu, etc.) and tools that include Mercurial (TortoiseHG, etc.) all provide their own Merge tool configuration preference list.
Either the old merge tool configuration list you had not longer points to Beyond Compare at the right location (upgraded BC and the directory name changed, etc.) or you got a new merge tool configuration list when you updated some software that included mercurial. Either way that page on MergeToolConfiguration will help you find your preference list in your hgrc files and update or correct it.
Tl;Dr: this isn't a "new" feature it's your new installation being less tailored for your system than your old one. Maybe find who packaged that one and copy the merge tool config.
I'm now using the awesome package "find-file-in-repository" to jump between files in different repositories, using ido to smartly complete the file path.
However one problem that I'm facing is that I constantly work on maybe 10 different respositories every day at least, so I would like to find a way to do the following.
An hypothetical function switch-to that when called:
if I start to type a file path it behaves as find-file-in-repository
if I type something else that should not be in a file path (for example ":") then I could switch project, and (given a hard coded list of my repositories somewhere) then complete on the filepath as before.
Is there anything like this lightweight and smart already available?
Any suggestions on other possible workflow otherwise to switch between projects and files in repositories?
I would like to avoid to have all the possible files in my repositories in a single completion list because it gets very slow and harder to find what I'm looking for at that point..
Have you tried projectile? With it you can do projectile-switch-project and it will prompt with all the projects you have worked on, once you have selected the project it will prompt you for the file you wish to open in that project. Plus it has some other goodies like grep-in-project, replace-in-project etc.
P.S. It recognizes git, mercurial, darcs, bazaar repos as projects.
Is there anything like this lightweight and smart already available? Any suggestions on other possible workflow otherwise to switch between projects and files in repositories?
Yes. Use Emacs bookmarks. You can bookmark practically anything, including "repositories" or sets of repositories or pieces of a repository.
Bookmark+, in particular, is your friend.
I am using Mercurial, but I imagine that any merge tool that is aware of the version control system below it could do several things that a merge tool which is not aware of the version control system and only sees two "files" in two different folders, could never do.
I have been using KDIFF3, and recently tried BeyondCompare, and neither of them will do this, at least not that I could figure out.
What I want to do is best shown in this picture, an annotation column and perhaps even ability to open other windows from those annotation columns so I could browse specific versions of specific files to see context when trying to do a merge.
In the image here, I am showing a two way merge, but the same applies for a three way merge. To the right or to the left of the actual file content being shown, I would like a gutter or a right side annotation column showing some kind of annotation of where this change came from. Since Mercurial hex ids are relatively unfriendly and unhelpful, and since repository-local-revision-numbers are repository local, I think that a short text description based on commit comments would be most helpful. Of course, with Mercurial, 99% of these commit comments are going to say "Merge", and nothing else. (Groan.) But lets pretend for a minute that we weren't using tools and workflows that left us that crippled at merge time, and instead, that we could have a useful commit comment show up each time:
Right now the workflow for complex merges looks like this for me:
Using my distributed version control tool (mercurial), pull changes from another repository which is in effect a branch. Merge. The merge window for TortoiseHg is usually where I start all this from. This in turn lets me configure a merge tool (beyond compare or Kdiff3).
However, it does not appear that there is any merge tool (that I have seen) that can be told, "hey you're not just merging two way or three way with different versions of a file in the two completely different folders, with the names I told you, but those files are also files that have a complete edit history available to you to show your human the actual context, the commits that those line changes came from with their commit comments, often having a bug number as part of the commit which will give the person doing the merge the ability to see What in the Heck is Really Going on.
I would change from Mercurial to Git, for example, even, for a real merge experience that didn't force me to do manually what I think my tools could be doing for me automatically. I'm using Mercurial, TortoiseHG, and KDIFF3, and if I could just change from KDIFF3 to some other tool, or do ANYTHING at all to get annotations and merges together on one screen, I would like to do so.
It finally started to annoy me enough to ask this question: how do I do a basic diff between two revisions of a file in CVS? Usually I want to compare the latest revision and some random old one. I'm using the Eclipse CVS plugin. When I use "compare with->Another branch or version..." from the selected file's (latest revision from HEAD or another branch) context menu, I get a list of branches, tags and dates but not revisions. Usually I have just created a date which I know is far enough in the past so I can compare the needed revisions but I thought that there must be a better way.
The answer is to show the file's history using context menu->Team->Show history, then choose two revisions and context menu for the selection->compare with each other.
There seems to be two main ways:
context menu->Team->Show history
which shows a linear history and you can select and compare between them, however it can be very bloated and hard to read when your project has lots of branches / tags. Personally i have found it less useful than:
context menu->Team->Show Commit history
Which seems to show the history of what has been committed to the specific branch/tag you are on. You can do it per file or per folder. The output is very similar but i find it clearer. You can click on a commit date and it will show you all the files (that you are interested in) that were committed on that date.
If you double click the file, it will then bring up another menu so that you can compare it with another file in the commit history
EDIT
(i find if you double click the "other" file, it doesn't do anything, you need to click "OK" in the dialogue, which seems silly to me. This might be effected by the fact I have the beyond compare 3 plug in, im not sure if it behaves the same without it)
EDIT
There is also a little button in the top right of the commit history window that allows you to switch to history view (but i always find it easy to read than the normal history view if i do it this way round)
Both should show you the comment added when committed and you should try and read about the differences between the but personally I haven't and its only form personal experience that i prefer commit history.
I apologize for not giving formal descriptions of each, this is purely from my personal experience of using them, i have not actually researched them both yet myself...