I have a typical use case working with feature branches and Git, as follows:
I want to rebase my feature branch onto master, without applying the commits from the branch "1.24", I have managed to do this from the command line specifying all the parameters, but I still cant find a graphical way to do this from eclipse.
What do you do on these cases? It is happening the same to me with merging, I believe this is a very common scenario on GitFlow workflow.
While your feature branch is checked out. Select "Rebase on" in context menu of master branch. That will rebase target branch with all commits that are not on master. That would be a typical use of rebase, not exactly what --onto does, however.
Update:
To select just a partial branch you can use interactive rebase (select "Interactive rebase" in context menu of target branch). It is very quick to use, so you can use it instead of --onto, which I think is not implemented in EGit in any form.
Related
I have a repository with the file content. In a branch, I submit some commit to this new feature. Somewhen, I submit some wrong commits and continue my work submitting others, now correct, commits. How can I `cherry-pick` this commit out?
I tried to :
checkout to the local master branch (git checkout master). The previous branch commits remain, as you can see by git log);
checkout a new branch (git checkout -b new-branch)
Cherry-pick specific commits (git cherry-pick commit_sha)
You need git rebase, which allows (amongst many other features) selectively applying a set of commits from one branch into another.
I find Tortoise Git's interactive rebase tool is quite easy to understand, if you are in Windows are enjoy using the mouse.
In any other case, I'd still recommend using an external tool such as the git-interactive-rebase-tool command line utility.
I am quite new with Gitlab and I'm having an issue for merging in Eclipse.
We're working as a team, and we all have development branches that we are trying to merge into a single one. Unfortunately, when I did my merge, I have done a stupid mistake. Instead of merging my development branch to the main one, I have merged the main one into my development branch.
I have reversed the commit/merge on gitlab, but now as I try to merge back my development branch into the main one on Eclipse, it seems like I am 9 commits ahead of this branch (described as the arrows on Eclipse here: ), so the potential merge would basically replace everything by my code, when I should actually have merge conflicts to solve.
I am not quite sure how to merge properly so that I get back these merge conflicts.
Here is a screenshot of my network:
The ['1'] commit in the network on the left branch (my branch) corresponds to the merge from Week6AllIssues to my dev branch (the wrong merge). The last commit on this left branch is me reversing the commit.
Thanks a lot for your help !
If you're not using the remote branch with anyone else, the following series of steps might help.
First, remove the superfluous commits from the local branch. It can be achieved with git reset --hard <the commit before you merged master into your branch> command (see this link on how to do this with Eclipse).
Now make the remote branch match your local branch. You can do this with git push --force command. In Eclipse, this command corresponds to configure push - enable "force update" option.
Now the superfluous commits are gone.
I am using git-svn in my workplace since our current version control server is subversion and switching completely to git does not seem to be on the horizon for now (*cry*)
My workflow is as follows
I have the following branches
master tracks remotes/trunk
local/0.4 tracks remotes/0.4
work is my development branch for the master branch
work-0.4 is my development branch for the local/0.4 branch
I work in my work branches, then I merge to master and local/0.4 using
git merge --no-ff <branchname>
After that I check in to svn via
git svn dcommit
and I use
svn.pushmergeinfo=true
to update the svn:mergeinfo properties so my colleagues won't get angry with me messing up that metadata for them :)
However, I just had the following problem which stumps me.
I had done two commits on the work-0.4 branch, then I merged these to my local/0.4 branch with git merge --no-ff work-0.4. After this, I did git svn dcommit and recieved the following message
Committing to https://svn-server ...
e138050f6ebd2f2ca99cbefc5e48acae412e1f86 is merged into revision f5f2345e8e5fc64
20423bdc00397b5853b3759c4, but does not have git-svn metadata. Either dcommit the
branch or use a local cherry-pick, FF merge, or rebase instead of
an explicit merge commit.
After some rebasing and reset'ing of branches I managed to push everything to svn, but my solution entailed doing a rebase of my local/0.4 branch to the work-0.4 branch which in turn meant that I did not get to squash my two git-commits into one svn-commit :/
I feel that I'm probably doing something wrong with my workflow here, and it might be related to svn.pushmergeinfo. The docs for svn.pushmergeinfo says
config key: svn.pushmergeinfo
+
This option will cause git-svn to attempt to automatically populate the
svn:mergeinfo property in the SVN repository when possible. Currently, this can
only be done when dcommitting non-fast-forward merges where all parents but the
first have already been pushed into SVN.
and to be honest, I'm not quite sure that I understand that correctly? Am I doing something weird here that makes svn.pushmergeinfo not work correctly? How should I structure my workflow to optimally work with git-svn correctly (setting proper mergeinfos etc)?
I am trying to contribute to a project that uses Subversion. I used Mercurial and its hgsubversion extension to clone the repo. My work takes place on a feature branch.
How do I keep the feature branch up to date with stuff that happens on the default branch (hg speak) aka the trunk (svn speak)?
So I used hg up feature to update to the feature branch, then hg pull which gave me changesets on the default branch. So I did hg merge default, the committed the merge, then tried hg push to send my changesets to Subversion. And Mercurial said: "Sorry, can't find svn parent of a merge revision."
I have finally figured out how to get my repository un-wedged after an event like that described in the question, so that I can continue work without having to re-clone the parent repository (which is, obviously, a quite slow operation when you are pulling from Subversion!). If the "tip" of Subversion outruns you so that you cannot push any more, just make sure that you have the built-in "rebase" extension activated in your Mercurial through a $HOME/.hgrc line like this:
[extensions]
rebase =
And then you should be able to run this command when your repository gets wedged:
$ hg rebase --svn
If I understand this correctly, it dissolves your current branch that has taken you away from Subversion HEAD, and rebuilds it atop the branch "tip" in Mercurial that corresponds to the HEAD in Subversion. From there, you can keep working and successfully do pushes again. It has always worked for me so far; let me know if you run into any problems!
Mercurial as a few different branching modes: http://stevelosh.com/blog/2009/08/a-guide-to-branching-in-mercurial/
The one you're describing is 'named branches', which is the most popular when you're working with a repo that's accessed only via mercurial (or hg-git).
However, when you're using hg-subversion so that you're pushing changes to/from subversion, which only nominally has branches, you're better off keeping all of your mercurial changes in the 'default' named branch, and using the 'clones and branches' pattern (which I prefer anyway).
Specifically, that message Sorry, can't find svn parent of a merge revision. isn't a descendant of a revision that has a direct match in subversion.
Were I you, I'd reclone from svn, and then move my work into that repo's 'default' branch with the 'transplant' command (packaged extension). If you want multiple features in parallel w/ hg-subversion use separate clones (they're so cheap), as it's more in line with how subversion thinks about branches.
I needed to figure this out for myself and wrote it up here:
http://notebook.3gfp.com/2010/05/pushing-a-new-feature-from-a-mercurial-repo-into-an-svn-repo/
I haven't yet figured out how to close a branch in subversion and have the mercurial graph look correct.
I would like to do some experimental work in a hg project. So I would like to create branch, commit to it. And if the experiment works, I can merge it back to main branch.
In git, I can do
$ git branch experimental
$ git checkout experimental
(edit file)
$ git commit -a
$ git checkout master
I've read A Guide to Branching in Mercurial. It said hg branch feature. But what is next?
I don't follow.
$ hg branch experimental
(edit file)
$ hg commit
$ hg update default
First note that git branch is different from hg branch. Branches created with hg branch are permanent and live in a global name space, whereas branches made with git branch are transient. The nearest equivalent of git branch is hg bookmark: bookmarks can be renamed and deleted and behave more like Git-branches.
I've recently written a guide for Mercurial bookmarks. Compare this with the named branch guide. Both guides contain worked examples of how to use (named) branches in Mercurial for keeping track of the development. It shows how to merge branches and how to close them or delete the bookmark when you are done.
If it's not a big feature (i.e. the branch doesn't have to have a name), it's quite simple.
Let's say your repository is at changeset X. You work on the feature as much as you like, commit, commit, commit and if you're happy with the result, continue as if you knew it would work all along. ;) If you aren't happy, do a hg update X and continue development from there. All the work you did on your experiment will become an anonymous branch.
Strangely enough, it appears that Git doesn't provide such a way to work with anonymous branches which is what might be confusing you.