I have a customized local repository of NopCommerce 3.5. The new version of NopCommerce (3.6) is out and I would like to try to update to it. I downloaded their source code and I would like to somehow replace all the files in my local repository with the new files (outside the repository) and then have mercurial detect the changes and merge them with my changes. Obviously the merge would be manual but I have no problem with that.
In case I am not explaining this properly, let me give you and example:
I have file foo.cs (v3.5) which has custom code in my local repository. I downloaded the new foo.cs (v3.6) which is not in any repository. How can I merge them so that I can keep my changes and the the new changes added by the NopCommerce team?
This is what I have tried so far:
I created a new branch called "Nop3.6" and replaced foo.cs. Then I tried to merge the "Nop3.6" branch with my "default" branch hoping to be able to merge manually and keep both, my custom code and the new changes added in foo.cs (v3.6).
As you might expect this didn't work. my foo.cs file (v3.5) was completely replaced with the new foo.cs and all my changes were lost.
Any help in the right direction would be much appreciated.
Doing the merge vice versa (your changes into v3.6 might work better. Also make sure that you have selected a reasonable merge tool (internal works, but there are possibly more convenient ones out there, I use kdiff3 myself):
I assume you have a repository with v3.5 and on top of that you have one or several changesets which are your own modifications of that source. If you haven't committed your changes as changesets on top of v3.5, then do that now.
Then, in order to get a decent merge with v3.6 do the following:
update to the unmodified v3.5 again. Copy v3.6 over this and commit the complete change as v3.6. You end up with a repository which has two anonymous branches with v3.5 being their common ancestor.
Now you can merge those two branches. As you possibly want to keep your changes on top of v3.6, update to v3.6 and merge your local changes into that branch.
Related
I've read multiple documentations already but I don't seem to get it - I want to branch one project folder of our rcp, change something there and test with the changes I've made there.
Which steps do I have to make to work on the branch? How do I integrate the branch in my workspace for testing without ruining my local files and what does Switch... do?
Working on a branch directly through Subclipse isn't possible. You have to check out to your local machine first and then commit back.
This will override local changes, so make sure to branch them first.
IF you want to test your quick changes in your project without your local changes ,this is what you can do
-Create a new branch of the trunk/active of your project in SVN
-Checkout the new branch from SVN as its own project
make your quick change . Test it locally
Check it back into the branch. When you are ready, merge your code.
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.
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
I am working on an enormous project ("the project") which is open-source, and I am changing the project but don't have a permission to commit. I'm looking for strategies for maintaining my own branch of the project. Some issues I am contemplating:
How to put my own work in a version control system, given that I'm altering the project's source code, adding new files and so on.
How to keep in sync with the project without having to manually merge my own changes over and over again.
I've never been in this situation - I've always maintained my complete project in some version control system. My plan right now is something like that:
Creating a directory tree in my SVN, similar to the one in the project.
Keeping all the changed files (and only them) in my svn.
Every time I decide to sync with the new baseline of the project, I'll do a checkout, merge my svn tree into the new version, test, then commit my changes to my svn and distribute them along with the latest project baseline.
The problems here are ENDLESS. Way too many manual steps, more and more work over time, and so on. The correct way to go would be, of course, to be a part of the original project, but this seems to be quite irrelevant right now for various reasons and is out of the question.
Ideas?
I'd use git or mercurial for this; simply import the project into git or mercurial, and merge the upstream changes into a branch in your project for easy merging into your trunk.
If the upstream project has a repository of their own, the import is even easier. Both git and mercurial have support for directly importing other version control systems. I did this recently to adapt an existing project that lives in SVN: https://github.com/mjpieters/rod.recipe.rabbitmq
Note that that project has an 'upstream' branch. That particular project has now accepted my proposed changes after reviewing the changes in github.com.
There are a few questions here on SO on the subject:
Fork and synchronize Google Code Subversion repository into GitHub
Tracking upstream svn changes with git-svn and github?
Best way to fork SVN project with Git
It should be trivial to create a similar setup with mercurial.
You can use git to maintain your source control on your local system. In fact Git can be used to maintain just about any directory under version control. There is no need to sync to anything, git maintains all changes locally.
If you need to commit to SVN check out the documentation http://git-scm.com/docs/git-svn
I want to store a project in Mercurial that contains external code (which can be modified by me) coming from Git and SVN repositories. In SVN I would solve this with vendor branches and copy the code around, but I understood that in Mercurial it's better to have different repositories for different projects, and pull between them when needed.
The project layout will be like this:
- externalLibraryA [comes from a SVN repo]
- ...with some extra files from me
- externalLibraryB [comes from a SVN repo]
- ...with some extra files from me
- externalPluginForExternalLibraryB [comes from a Git repo]
In Subversion I would create vendor dir and a trunk dir, copy all external libraries first in vendor, and then in the right place in trunk. (I think) I can do this in Mercurial too, with subrepositories, but is this the best way to do this?
I tried setting up different repositories for the external libraries, but then it seems I can't pull the externalLibraryARepo into the externalLibraryA directory of my main repository? It goes in the main directory, which is not what I want. I can also create a Mercurial mirror repository and include it as a subrepo in my main repository, but then the changes in this subdirectory go to the mirror repository, while I want them to stay in the main repository.
I'd probably just store this in one repository - note that in the link you give they are using their build system in the end to bring together the binary output from the different repos. I'm not clear on their rationale there.
If the underlying problem you're trying to solve is how to update the externals in a clean way, I'd probably use anonymous branching for that.
I.e. add the external lib to your project, and your modifications. Make sure it works. Tag with ExternalA-v1.0. Hack away on your actual project. Now ExternalA, Inc. has a new version of their stuff. Update your repo to ExternalA-v1.0 tag. Import their new version and apply your modifications on top. Commit. Now you have two heads: one with the latest version of your code (that works with ExternalA-v1.0) and one with the latest version of ExternalA (that does not work with your code, maybe). So then you merge and reconcile the two. Tag again, now with ExternalA-v2.0. Repeat as needed.
You can still keep your externals in separate repositories, but I assume that the project that is using those does not need to be up to date with changes there all the time - looks like the whole point of vendor branches is to have some point of isolation between dependee and dependants. Of course, moving the changes from the externalA project to the project that is using that will then be a manual affair (well, a copy, much like in SVN really).
It depends on whether your vendor code is going to be customized by your team or not. Our teams have had a great deal of success maintaining a named "vendor" branch on repositories with our own customizations on branches named by project name. This vendor code is then easily included in a project as a subrepository.
A caveat to this approach: if active development is going on in the subrepository, best keep it to directly editing the subrepository as a separate clone, otherwise it becomes necessary to pay close attention to the top-level repository so you don't inadvertantly bump your .hgsubstate forward to the wrong revision and break your build.
Watch out for merges of the top-level repository (your project) between versions which point to different named branches of your subrepository, as this can result in a merge between the "vendor" and "project" branches in the subrepository as it recurses, which may not be desirable.
Note that this functionality may change in the future as well, as some "warm" discussions have been taking place in recent months on the mercurial-devel mailing lists about the future of subrepository recursion.
edit:
I just saw this discussion in the related links as well, which seems relevant: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3998791/1186771