I often see the below errors on doing git pull on totally untouched files which I am NOT working on.
Pull is not possible because you have unmerged files
It is clear the conflicted files have changed in the git repo. But I don't understand why git pull cannot over-write on these untouched files - which I've not touched?
What can I or my team do to avoid getting these errors?
Edited -
Along with the solution I want to understand why the errors are coming.
Just to make clear, the other team members are working on other files (say xyz). And I am working on a separate set of files having no dependency on xyz files. So if I pull the repo changes after a long time with no changes from my side in xyz, why the conflicts in those files?
use git diff to see problem files
look at this git cheat shets for usefull commands
http://www.cheat-sheets.org/saved-copy/git-cheat-sheet.pdf
http://jan-krueger.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/git-cheat-sheet-v2-back.svg
There are some tips from my own experience. i'm not sure whether they're 100% corerect)
Split work with your team on paralel threads. Try not to work in the same files.
Try to avoid situations when 2 or more persons are adding new files simalteniously. When one added new files others should make pull as soon as possible
the last but not least - make git push very often. this will keep your project git up to date
Since git pull does not pull individual files, it's git merge phase will stop for manual correction of any merge conflicts. git merge and/or git pull (and by nature of the fact that git pull is essentially git fetch followed by git merge) is an all-or-nothing operation - you either successfully merge the changes introduced on both (or all) of the branches you are merging together, or you don't merge any of them. The catch in that is when conflicts arise that must be manually resolved - but in that situation, you are in an in-between state, having neither completed and committed the merge nor rolled it back to your previous state.
The message you are getting implies that you have previously done a git pull or a git merge, which stopped in the middle, requesting that you manually resolve some conflicts, which you have not yet done, but have rather continued on doing other stuff, and are now trying to do another git pull / git merge without ever having completed the first one.
Take a look at git status, and follow the suggested directions for either resolving your in-progress merge issues or resetting back to a not-in-the-middle-of-a-merge state.
Related
Our team is looking to migrate our perforce server over to Git. Is there a way to sync check-ins from a branch in our Github Server back to Perforce to keep them in sync? I have been looking at git-p4 and there seems to be lots of documentation of how to sync Perforce -> Git but not the other way around. I would ideally like to have it syncing both ways perforce <-> git, is that possible with p4-git?
Perforce GitFusion can do this, but the developer would have to push changes to the GitFusion server instead of the github server.
For most of the time, merge conflicts were sorted out automatically. Perforce was the "master". People submitting from Perforce always had their change go straight through. People submitting from git would have their change submitted via this process:
lock master git repo
fetch upstream p4 changes
rebase against upstream p4
submit to p4 if that all went ok
That still left a very small window between (3) and (4) where someone in Perforce land could submit a conflicting change to the same files. But in practice that only happened a couple of times, over the course of several years of probably hundreds of commits per week.
In those two cases I went in and manually patched things up which was a bit clunky. I think you could just automatically discard the problematic change quite easily, but in the end, switching to git entirely made this problem go away.
Git-p4 is designed such that the git repository is initialized with data imported from Perforce. After this initial import bidirectional communication between git and Perforce repositories is fully supported, with the exception of branches/merges that have limited support.
To import updates from Perforce to git:
git p4 sync
To submit changes from git to Perforce:
git p4 submit
For more details regarding git-p4 configuration please consult its documentation.
Update: I would always advise to test any flows in temporary repositories before deploying.
In the past I setup something like this. I had a gitolite repo and a p4 server. Changes pushed to the gitolite repo would be picked up by a cron job and turned into P4 commits (via git-p4 submit). Similarly, changes submitted to p4 would be picked up by the same cron job and synced back to git (via git p4 rebase).
There were two git repos involved: the gitolite repo that normal git developers committed to, and a separate git-p4 based repo where the git-p4 operations took place.
I had a fairly small shell script to co-ordinate everything. The main tricky areas were:
locking: you have to forcibly rebase the gitolite repo so you need some way to ensure developers don't lose changes when this happens (I used a lock file).
Merge conflicts. Very occasionally two people would edit the same section of a file in P4 and git at the same time.
I have faced this problem myself and as far as I know there's nothing of the kind.
In my case I have to basically:
Create a patch for the changes in Git: git diff sha1..sha2 > mypatch.diff
Make a list of the affected files: git diff --name-only sha1..sha2 > files.list
Apply the patch in the P4 repo: git apply mypatch.diff
Reconcile changes in P4: for each file in files.list; p4 reconcile $file; done
Edit your P4 change list and then submit it (I'm sure this can be automated too but I haven't had the need for it).
I have a couple of scripts that help me with this, you can find them here: https://github.com/pgpbpadilla/git-p4-helpers#sharing-changes-git-p4
I have been using this workflow for ~6mo and it works for most cases.
Caveats
This creates a single change lists for all commits in the sha range (a..b).
Using gitHub (and Eclipse Egit, and SourceTree) with a forked repo, how can I make a pull request that just contains a few select files I want pulled?
This question asks almost the same thing, but addresses 'cherry-picking' a single or group of commits. I seem to need to have a pull request with just a few files from within a larger commit.
I tend to make a lot of changes to a lot of files putting in debugging code then find a solution that may involve only a change to a file or two. I don't commit very frequently so I don't have have a commit that contains only the changes that fix the problem (and I like keeping the debugging hooks in my copy of the code.)
I'd like SourceTree or eGit/Eclipse to: 1) show me which files are different between two commits and 2) let me select which files to include in a pull request. Perhaps I could do some selective merge files in my current master head and the master of the upstream repo?
I think what you want to do is to check out a number of files from a given commit / tree / revision.
To do this use:
git checkout [tree-ish] -- [paths]
[tree-ish] is a git-ism that basically means a commit, tag or branch, or something that refers to one of those. So if you have a remote remotes/foo/bar and you want baz.c from that revision, you do:
git checkout remotes/foo/bar -- baz.c
A 'pull request' is not a git thing, but a github thing. You will need to do a git remote add to add the repo you want to pull, then use git fetch or git remote update to pull the relevant information, then use the appropriate branch name in the above to get the file(s) you want.
Ok, I've got a problem that I have no idea how to go about solving.
First, a bit of history:
I pulled from my upstream to bring in changes and merged them with the branch I was working in. At the time, I may have been using a console window with root access. I say this because I noticed a day later I couldn't save to a lot of the files in my local repo. I noticed the owner / group had been changed to root and permissions were 644. After going through and hunting down all of the screwed up files, I then pushed some changes I had made back to my remote working branch.
A week later (now), and I've added several other commits to an open pull request from my remote branch. In the middle of them was the commit I made after fixing my local repo file permissions. I noticed it has some 1200 "empty" files (no changes). I'm a little concerned that merging this pull request upstream could cause big problems and I have no idea how to remove this one commit or if it's even possible...
I tried creating a new branch and using cherry-pick to get all but the one commit, but I've removed files and couldn't merge the older commits that saw a "conflict" between the file that existed at the time and one that no longer exists in the local repo...
Anyway, any thoughts?
The solution I used was to reset my local branch to the commit just before the one that I didn't want. I then copied and pasted the commits after the failed commit into code, recommited, and pushed toa new branch. Long way around, yes. But it wasn't bad as I didn't have a lot of code to fix. A simpler method might have been to use cherry-pick to pull the later commits into my reset local branch, but I tried that at one point and had problems...
I am using Git to share my code with my team and Eclipse as my IDE. I have installed the EGit plugin for Git functionality. The problem is that I am not sure what the correct steps to sync my local branch with the remote one are (something like: 1. Right click on your repository and team->fetch 2. Pull 3. and so on...).
Currently I know that first I have to fetch (this will update my remote branch) and next I need to pull. Let's say there is a conflict between the remote and local branch; how should I resolve it?
I have read a lot of tutorials on the net, but it seems that my case is too obvious to explain elaborately.
Currently I know that first I have to fetch (this will update my remote branch) next I need to pull
No, you can pull directly: it combines a fetch and a merge.
Any merge conflict that might arise during a pull will be handle like any other merge
If your merge resulted in conflicts (note the red symbols on the file icons), you will have to resolve these manually. Open the conflicting files and scroll to the conflicting changes marked with “<<<<<<<”.
After you are finished the manual part of the merge, you will have to tell Git that the conflicts are resolved. To do so, Add the files and Commit to complete your merge.
I'm trying to do some work on a project called NS-3, but my problem isn't project specific so I thought I'd ask here as well as the relevant mailing list.
Basically, a copy of the then current project code was made, and a fresh repo made of that code. Work was done on both the 'forked' version and the trunk.
So cloned the forked source, cd in, and hg pull <latest-dev>, hg merge, and while it wasn't a perfect merge, the changes that were unmergable were all related to one library change, so easily fixed (in theory). Naturally this optimistic attempt failed to build.
Now I'm not entirely sure where to go from here, I'm new to DCVS so please; ideas directed towards a 5 year old!
How can I find out which changeset of the forked version was last merged against the dev-trunk since they're separate but related repos?
The Case Where You Started With a Copy Not a Clone:
If this is what happened:
Project Exists
Copy (not clone) of project is made
hg init is run in each separate copy, creating two unrelated repositories
work is done in both copies
Then to merge them you want to do this in the newest of the two unrelated repos:
hg update 0, which jumps the repository back to its earliest point -- the point where it last looked identical to the other
copy in the contents of the working directory from the other repository
hg commit, which creates a new head
hg merge, which merges the two heads and also provides a base revision, which helps the merge process.
The key is getting a base revision involved if possible. What DVCS systems bring to the table that CVS and SVN don't is that every merge is a 3-way merge between two heads and the most recent common ancestor. Faking that common ancestor by creating the new head off the last point the two repos looked the same (revision 0 in the copy) simulates a base revision.
The Case Where You Started With a Clone Not a Copy
This is the classic DVCS case and there shouldn't be much you need to do. Just go into one of the clones, hg pull from the other and fire off the hg merge. If the merge requires input you'll use hg resolve to provide it, and when you're done hg commit.
If at this point your code isn't building/running then you need to just start debugging. Use hg blame to see what was being done near the lines that won't compile and try to suss out what was being done and how to work on it.
The merge process is much easier the more frequently you do it. Pull in up-stream changes daily, not monthly.
You can turn on the GraphLog extension and use the hg log -G command to see the point at which the two lines of development diverged, but in the end merging is development, and you just need to approach a non-building merge like you would any other software defect.