We're having a compatibility problem between Mercurial and another synchronization product (MS Office Groove, now Sharepoint Workspace 2010). Basically, the ".hg" folder and ".hgignore" files are being blocked (I've summarized the issue with the other software).
We've been told that the only work-around is to change the name of the folder. Is there any way to modify Mercurial's naming convention for the database folder and ignore file? From what I understand, I'd just need to make the names more "normal" by adding a prefix. Sort of a "Hail Mary" but thought I'd ask.
You can use a different file name for .hgignore (or more accurately have no .hgignore and then use an ignore= line in your hg/hgrc file to reference an additional ignore file with whatever name you want). However you can't use an alternative name for .hg itself.
As Lasse suggests you shouldn't be synchronizing .hg directories externally anyway. Their read/write/lock semantics are very specific and the only reading/writing to them should be via hg itself. It's very easy to set up a cron job that automatically pushes to a backup repo as often as you'd like.
The names are hard-coded in the Mercurial source, search for occurrences of ".hg" and ".hgignore" (for added safety, also using single quotes). However, since a typical Mercurial installation provides the Mercurial source code, it's easy to change this to anything you prefer.
Related
In one of my repositories nearly all of my code is Python and some HTML.
However, Github thinks otherwise:
What causes that?
You were creating files through a script, with an unintended extension. That is, your script was inserting a dot in the file name.
Simply rename your file my_file_0.5ms to my_file_05ms.txt and it will display the correct languages:
What you could do to fix similar problems in the future is use a script to detect extensions and the total lines of code for each extension.
Solution
GitHub Linguist is the culprit in this situation, but luckily, it can be easily resolved in a number of ways.
Create a .gitattributes file and list patterns that match the files you want to ignore, and then append either linguist-vendored or linguist-documentation.
specific-file.5ms
*.5ms
specific-folder/*
This will remove the files from your GitHub repositories statistics on the next run of Linguist (it may take some time).
Notes
If you'd like to attribute these files to a specific language, you can do that using linguist-language={name}. Full documentation on overriding Linguist can be found here.
You can also run Linguist on your own computer, but note that any changes to .gitattributes will not take effect until you commit to your repository. Linguist will not see changes that exist only in the index.
I found what appears to be an old source repository for some source code that I need to resurrect. But I have no idea what source control tools were used to generate and manage this source repository. In the directory, all of the files have a "s." prefixed to the file name. Without knowing the format in these files, I cannot manually extract the source code with any degree of accuracy. And even if I did, manually extracting the source code would be very time consuming and error prone.
What source/version control system prefixes its source files with "s." when it stores the source file in its repository directory?
How can I effectively extract the latest source code from this repository directory?
The s. prefix is characteristic of SCCS, the Source Code Control System. The code for that is probably still proprietary, but GNU has the CSSC project which can manipulate SCCS files. It tracks changes per-file in revisions, known as 'deltas'.
SCCS is the official revision control system for POSIX; you can find the commands documented on the Open Group site (but the file format is not specified there, AFAICT):
admin
delta
get
prs
rmdel
sact
unget
val
what
The file format is not specified by POSIX. The manual page for get says:
The SCCS files shall be files of an unspecified format.
The original SCCS command set included some extras not recorded by POSIX:
cdc — change delta commentary (for changing the checkin comments for a delta)
comb — combine, effectively for merging deltas
help — no prefix; the wasn't any other help program at the time. Commands generate error codes such as cm3 and help interpreted them.
sccsdiff — difference between two deltas of a file
Most systems now have a single command, sccs, which takes the operation name and then options. Often, the files were placed into an ./SCCS/ subdirectory and extracted from that as required, and the sccs front-end would handle name expansion, adding s. or SCCS/s. to the start of the file names.
For extracting the latest version of the source code, use get.
get s.*
sccs get s.*
These will get the default version of each file, and the default default is the latest version of the file.
If you need to make changes, use:
get -e s.filename.c
...make changes...
delta -y'Why you made the changes' s.filename.c
get s.filename.c
Note that the files 'lose' the s. prefix for the working file names, rather like RCS (Revision Control System) files lose the ,v suffix for the working file names. If you've not come across that, accept that it was different when SCCS and RCS were created, back in the late 70s or early 80s.
SCCS uses an s. prefix. But it might not be the only one!
I never knew this knowledge would come in useful some day!
My original problem is that I have a directory where I write various scripts. Each of them is independent of others, and usually one-file-long. I want to have some versioning applied to them, but I have the following problems/requirements:
I don't want to have to store each small script in a separate directory!
I don't want to store them all in one repository OTOH, as they are completely unrelated, and:
some of them may later grow to more files (and then they will need a separate dir),
I sometimes want to copy one of them to a different machine (and I want to clone the whole repo).
I want to benefit from (distributed) version control mechanisms -- at least:
"infinite" number of revisions,
ability to clone repositories on different computers,
ability to do "atomic" multi-file commits.
Is it possible?
I'd prefer to do it in some mainstream distributed VCS (a solution using Mercurial would be preferable, but I'm not fixed).
EDIT: the solution has to be free (at least "as in beer") and cross-platform (at least Win32 & Linux).
Related, but didn't help:
"two-git-repositories-in-one-directory" -- didn't find it helpful: the accepted answer looks like point 2. (above) to me; the current "community voted" answer sounds like 1.
"Version control of single files using Subversion" -- also too much of 2. or 1.
These requirements seem pretty "special" to me, so here is a solution on par with them ^^
You may use two completely different VCS, in the same directory. Even two "instances" of SVN might work: SVN stores its metadata in a directory called .SVN and has (for historical reasons regarding ASP) the option to use _SVN. The Directory listing should look like this
.SVN // Metadata for rep1
_SVN // Metadata for rep2
script1 // in rep1
script2 // in rep2
...
Of course, you will need to hide or ignore the foreign scripts or folders from each VCS...
Added:
This only accounts for two scripts in one folder and needs one additional VCS per script beyond that, so if you even consider this route and need more repositories, rename each Metadir and use a script to rename it back before updating:
MOVE .SVN-script1 .SVN
svn update
MOVE .SVN .SVN-script1
Why don't you simply create a separate branch (in the git sense) for each (group of) script(s)?
You can develop them individually as you please. Switching to a branch will show you only the scripts from that branch. It's sort of like directories but managed by the version control system. If you later want to pluck a branch out into another repository, you can do that and if you want to combine two scripts into a single project, you can do that as well. The copying them to the different machine point might be a problem but you can clone the branch you're interested in and you it should work for you.
Another proposition for my own consideration is "Using Convert to Decompose Your Repository" article on hgtip.com. It fails as a "standalone" solution, but could be helpful as an addition to the "mv .hgN .hg / MOVE .SVN-script1 .SVN" idea.
You can create multiple hidden repository directories and symlink .hg to whichever one you want to be active. So if you have two repositories, create directories for them:
.hg_production
.hg_staging
Then to activate either of them just do:
ln -sf .hg_production .hg
You could easily create a bash command to do this. So instead you could write something like activate-repo production, which would run ln -sf .hg_production .hg.
Note: Mac doesn't seem to support ln -sf so instead you'll need to do:
rm .hg; ln -s .hg_production .hg
I can only think of these two lightweight versioning systems:
1) Using Dropbox with the Pack-Rat upgrade, to keep a full history of versions for each file automatically backed up and with the possibility to be shared with multiple Dropbox users: https://www.dropbox.com/help/113
If you have multiple machines managed by the same user (you), the synching would be automatic. Also if the machines are in the same LAN, Dropbox is smart enough to sync the files over the local network, so big files shouldn't be a worry.
2) Using a 'Versions' aware text editor for Mac OS X Lion. I'd expect TextMate, Coda and other popular Mac code editors to be updated to support this feature when Lion is released.
How about a compromise between 1 and 2? Instead of a folder+repo for each script, can you bundle them into loosely related groups, such as "database", "backup", etc. and then make one folder+repo for each group? Then if you clone a repo on another machine, you're only pulling down a smaller number of unrelated files. (Is the bandwidth/drivespace really a concern?) To me, this sounds WAAAY simpler than all of the other suggestions so far.
(Technically this approach meets your requirements because (1) each script isn't in its own directory, (2) not all scripts are in the same repository, and (3) you can easily do this with any popular DVCS. :D)
UPDATE (2016): Apparently, a guy named Cosmin Apreutesei created a tool named multigit, which seems to implement what I wished for in this question! If you ever read it, thanks a lot Cosmin! I've started using your tool this year and find it awesome.
I'm starting to think of some kind of an overlay over Mercurial/git/... which would keep a couple "disabled" repository meta-directories, let's say:
.hg1/
.hg2/
.hg3/
etc., and then on hg commit FILENAME would find the particular .hgN that is linked to FILENAME, and would then temporarily:
mv .hgN .hg
hg commit FILENAME
mv .hg .hgN
The main disadvantage is that it would require me to spend some time writing the tool. Or does anybody know of some ready-made one like this? If you do, please post as a full-featured answer (not a comment), I'm more than willing to accept it.
I am doing a refactoring of my C++ project containing many source files.
The current refactoring step includes joining two files (say, x.cpp and y.cpp) into a bigger one (say, xy.cpp) with some code being thrown out, and some more code added to it.
I would like to tell my version control system (Perforce, in my case) that the resulting file is based on two previous files, so in future, when i look at the revision history of xy.cpp, i also see all the changes ever done to x.cpp and y.cpp.
Perforce supports renaming files, so if y.cpp didn't exist i would know exactly what to do. Perforce also supports merging, so if i had 2 different versions of xy.cpp it could create one version from it. From this, i figure out that joining two different files is possible (not sure about it); however, i searched through some documentation on Perforce and other source control systems and didn't find anything useful.
Is what i am trying to do possible at all?
Does it have a conventional name (searching the documentation on "merging" or "joining" was unsuccessful)?
You could try integrating with baseless merges (-i on the command line). If I understand the documentation correctly (and I've never used it myself), this will force the integration of two files. You would then need to resolve the integration however you choose, resulting in something close to the file you are envisioning.
After doing this, I assume the Perforce history would show the integration from the unrelated file in it's integration history, allowing you to track back to that file when desired.
I don't think it can be done in a classic VCS.
Those versioning systems come in two flavors (slide 50+ of Getting git by Scott Chacon):
delta-based history: you take one file, and record its delta. In this case, the unit being the file, you cannot associate its history with another file.
DAG-based history: you take one content and record its patches. In this case, the file itself can vary (it can be renamed/moved at will), and it can be the result of two other contents (so it is close of what you want)... but still within the history of one file (the contents coming from different branches of its DAG).
The easy part would be this:
p4 edit x.cpp y.cpp
p4 move x.cpp xy.cpp
p4 move y.cpp xy.cpp
Then the tricky part becomes resolving the move of y.cpp and doing your refactoring. But this will tell Perforce that the files are combined.
Is there any way to have the same file be a part of multiples changelists in perforce? With that I mean that from the set of changed lines in the file one subset will belong to a changelist, while the other subset will belong to a second changelist.
Bonus question: If perforce does not support this, then which Source Control Systems, if any, do?
To answer the bonus question: GIT allows for per-line changelists.
For a comparison between the two view this question: GIT vs. Perforce- Two VCS will enter... one will leave.
The same copy of the file? No, unfortunately this isn't possible.
Another way to do this without branching is create additional workspaces (clients). Unless you really know what you're doing, be sure to set a different root directory in each of your workspaces. To save time (and disk), don't bother syncing the whole depot in the new workspace.
Sometimes, I'll have two copies of a depot (using two workspaces); one which contains work-in-progress and one which I keep unmodified. If I need to make a quickie change on a file that's heavily modified in my WIP workspace, I can use the 'virgin' workspace to make the change and submit it.
If you are using p4 server 2009.2, there is a workaround to do it. You can shelve a particular file and the diff is stored on the server. After shelving you may want to revert the file to its original version and then work it on in another change-list.
I know this is not a way you wanted it but it is quite easy to create another workspace/client and then sync the code. The later exercise becomes more tedious when you have volumes of code that goes into another application.
For more info read:
http://blog.perforce.com/blog/?p=1872
http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/cmdref/shelve.html
You could make a copy of the file with all of the changes, revert, edit the file copy one set of changes into the file, submit, edit, copy the next set of changes, submit, edit, etc...
Bonus answer: I found this feature in Rational Team Concert (http://www-03.ibm.com/software/products/en/rtc/). You can have the same file in many changesets. If you want to add File1 to Changeset1 and Changeset2, you must complete Changeset1 first. This allows you to add File 2 to Changeset2 but then a dependency between changesets is created, so you can not deliver Changeset2 without delivering Changeset1 too. Moreover you can not make changes to a complete changeset.