Search Results

Search found 683 results on 28 pages for 'tortoise hg'.

Page 10/28 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • What is branched in a repository?

    - by Peter M
    Ok I hope that this will end up sounding like a reasonable question. From what I understand of subversion if you have a repo that contains multiple projects, then you can branch individual projects within that repo (see SVN Red book - Using Branches) However what I don't quite follow is what happens when you create a branch in one of the distributed systems (Git, Hg, Bazaar - I don't think it matters which one). Can you branch just a sub-directory of the repo, or when you create the branch are you branching the entire repo? This question is part of a larger one that I posted on superuser (choice and setup of version control) and has come about as I am trying to figure out how to best version control a large hierarchal layout of independent projects. It may be that for distributed systems that what I would like to do is best handled by a sub-project mechanism of some sort - but again that is something I am not clear on although I have heard the term mentioned in regards to git.

    Read the article

  • Java: how to get mercurial current changeset number for use in program

    - by Rabarberski
    I've recently started using mercurial for version control in a Java project. When I run my program, the input parameters it has used to produce certain a output, are written to a specific file. It would be nice if I could add the current mercurial changeset number (indicating the version of my program) to that output file as well. What would be the easiest way to do so on Windows? I could write a simple Java parser to fetch the output of the first line of the hg log -l 1 command, but perhaps there is an easier way (i.e., less code lines)?

    Read the article

  • How should I setup my Visual Studio projects/solutions in a Mercurial repository?

    - by Dave A
    At my company we have a few different web apps that each share some common libraries. The Visual Studio setup looks like this. Website 1 Solution Website 1 Shared Library 1 Project Shared Library 2 Project Website 2 Solution Website 2 Shared Library 1 Project Shared Library 2 Project Windows Service Solution Windows Service Project Shared Library 1 Project Shared Library 2 Project Shared Library Solution Shared Library 1 Project Shared Library 2 Project All Projects Solution Website 1 Website 2 Windows Service Project Shared Library 1 Project Shared Library 2 Project We want to start using Mercurial for source control, but I'm still not sure the best way to do it. From what I've read you're supposed to use a separate repository for each project. No problem there, but where do the Visual Studio solution files (.sln) go? Should there be a separate repository with just an .sln file? Ideally the projects that use the shared libraries should all use the same version, and the solution "All Projects Solution" should build without errors, but sometimes we need to branch the shared libraries. What is the best way to do this, and how would the repositories be setup? How do I get a working copy of a certain branch/tag of the Website 1 solution when every project is in a separate repository. Do I have to pull each one separately, or write a script to do it all at once? Can tortoise hg do that for me? Any other tips to make this process easier?

    Read the article

  • Why are mercurial subrepos behaving as unversioned files in eclipse AND torotoiseHG

    - by noam
    I am trying to use the subrepo feature of mercurial, using the mercurial eclipse plugin\tortoiseHG. These are the steps I took: Created an empty dir /root cloned all repos that I want to be subrepos inside this folder (/root/sub1, /root/sub2) Created and added the .hgsub file in the root repo /root/.hgsub and put all the mappings of the sub repos in it using tortoiseHG, right clicked on /root and selected create repository here again with tortoise, selected all the files inside /root and added them to to the root repo commited the root repo pushed the local root repo into an empty repo I have set up on kiln Then, I pulled the root repo in eclipse, using import-mercurial. Now I see that all the subrepos appear as though they are unversioned (no "orange cylinder" icon next to their corresponding folders in the eclipse file explorer). Furthermore, when I right click on one of the subrepos, I don't get all the hg commands in the "team" menu as I usually get, with root projects - no "pull", "push" etc. Also, when I made a change to a file in a subrepo, and then "committed" the root project, it told me there were no changes found. I see the same behavior also in tortoiseHG - When I am browsing files under /root, the files belonging directly to the root repo have an small icon (a V sign) on them marking they are version controlled, while the subrepos' folders aren't marked as such. Am I doing something wrong, or is it a bug?

    Read the article

  • Pre Commit Hook for JSLint in Mercurial and Git

    - by jrburke
    I want to run JSLint before a commit into either a Mercurial or Git repo is done. I want this as an automatic step that is set up instead of relying on the developer (mainly me) remembering to run JSLint before-hand. I normally run JSLint while developing, but want to specify a contract on JS files that they pass JSLint before being committed to the repo. For Mercurial, this page spells out the precommit syntax, but the only variables that seem to be available are the parent1 and parent2 changeset IDs involved in the commit. What I really want are a list of file names that are involved with the commit, so that I can then choose the .js file and run jslint over them. Similar issue for GIT, the default info available as part of the precommit script seems limited. What might work is calling hg status/git status as part of the precommit script, parse that output to find JS files then do the work that way. I was hoping for something easier though, and I am not sure if calling status as part of a precommit hook reflect the correct information. For instance in Git if the changes files have not been added yet, but the git commit uses -a, would the files show up in the correct section of the git status output as being part of the commit set? Update: I got something working, it is visible here: http://github.com/jrburke/dvcs_jslint/

    Read the article

  • Mercurial Tagging/Branching Strategy

    - by Tony Trozzo
    My current project is broken down into 3 parts: Website, Desktop Client, and a Plug-in for a third party program. We had started out originally with Subversion for our source control but decided to try Mercurial after reading Joel Spolsky's final post. Considering we haven't really used the majority of svn's potential before, we figured starting fresh with some basic ideas of how source control worked would make this transition easy. However, after setting up our initial repository, we're lost as to how tagging and branching should work on a project like this. Essentially, we're working on all 3 of these parts at the same time. We want a release to be a combination of the 3 parts. Currently we're working in one repository. For the Plug-in part, we have the first iteration finished which we've been referring to as Plug-In v0.1. For the first official build of the other two parts, we'd also like to refer to them as Website v0.1 and Desktop Client v0.1. When all three parts are at v0.1, we'd like to have a Full Project v0.1. Our problem is we're not sure how to manage all of this in the Hg repository. Would the best way to handle this be to create 3 separate repositories for the 3 stable versions and then 3 more repositories for the current developments? Currently we have this all in one repository. Should we do this in branches (are branches any different from cloning repositories?) and tags? Any help is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Creating multiple heads in remote repository

    - by Jab
    We are looking to move our team (~10 developers) from SVN to mercurial. We are trying to figure out how to manage our workflow. In particular, we are trying to see if creating remote heads is the right solution. We currently have a very large repository with multiple, related projects. They share a lot of code, but pieces of the project are deployed by different teams (3 teams) independent of other portions of the code-base. So each team is working on concurrent large features. The way we currently handles this in SVN are branches. Team1 has a branch for Feature1, same deal for the other teams. When Team1 finishes their change, it gets merged into the trunk and deployed out. The other teams follow suite when their project is complete, merging of course. So my initial thought are using Named Branches for these situations. Team1 makes a Feature1 branch off of the default branch in Hg. Now, here is the question. Should the team PUSH that branch, in it's current/half-state to the repository. This will create a second head in the core repo. My initial reaction was "NO!" as it seems like a bad idea. Handling multiple heads on our repository just sounds awful, but there are some advantages... First, the teams want to setup Continuous Integration to build this branch during their development cycle(months long). This will only work if the CI can pull this branch from the repo. This is something we do now with SVN, copy a CI build and change the branch. Easy. Second, it makes it easier for any team member to jump onto the branch and start working. Without pushing to the core repo, they would have to receive a push from a developer on that team with the changeset information. It is also possible to lose local commits to hardware failure. The chances increase a lot if it's a branch by a single developer who has followed the "don't push until finished" approach. And lastly is just for ease of use. The developers can easily just commit and push on their branch at any time without consequence(as they do today, in their SVN branches). Is there a better way to handle this scenario that I may be missing? I just want a veteran's opinion before moving forward with the strategy. For bug fixes we like the general workflow of mecurial, anonymous branches that only consist of 1-2 commits. The simplicity is great for those cases. By the way, I've read this , great article which seems to favor Named branches.

    Read the article

  • Apache config: Permissions, Directories and Locations

    - by James Murphy
    I'm trying to get my head around apache configuration to fix a problem I'm having but after a few hours I've decided to ask here. This is what I've got at the moment: DocumentRoot "/var/www/html" <Directory /> Options None AllowOverride None Deny from all </Directory> <Directory /var/svn> Options FollowSymLinks AllowOverride None Allow from all </Directory> <Directory /opt/hg> Options FollowSymLinks AllowOverride None Allow from all </Directory> <Location /hg> AuthType Digest AuthName "Engage HG" AuthDigestProvider file AuthUserFile /opt/hg/hgweb.users Require valid-user </Location> WSGISocketPrefix /var/run/wsgi WSGIDaemonProcess hg processes=3 threads=15 WSGIProcessGroup hg WSGIScriptAlias /hg "/opt/hg/hgweb.wsgi" <Location /svn> DAV svn SVNPath /var/svn/repos AuthType Basic AuthName "Subversion" AuthUserFile /etc/httpd/conf/users require valid-user </Location> I'm trying to get my head around how it's all laid out and how directories relate to locations/etc For /hg I get asked for a password but to /svn I get a 403 forbidden... the error I get is: [client 10.80.10.169] client denied by server configuration: /var/www/html/svn When I remove the entry it works fine.. I can't figure out how to get it linking to the /var/svn directory

    Read the article

  • Mercurial outgoing Hook

    - by Tom Bell
    I'm looking to create a Mercurial hook that pushes to a backup remote repository when I push to a local repository. I thought I could hook the 'outgoing' hook, but this creates a infinite loop that isn't pretty. So is there like a post-push hook, or would it be best to have the repository I am pushing to have an 'incoming' hook to push the to the remote backup instead?

    Read the article

  • Pulling and pushing between two google code repositories

    - by Kim L
    I'll start by quoting google's blog Project owners can now create multiple repositories for their project, and they can choose to make any of those new repositories a clone of any of the project's other repositories. These project clones share the same commit access permissions as the original project and make it easier for project members to work together on new features. A common pattern in the Mercurial world is to place each "official" branch into a separate repository with naming conventions like "project-crew", "project-stable", and so on. I've done exactly this. I have my default repository and then I've cloned that repository to a repo named "dev". I intend to use the default repository as my stable repo and then the dev repo as my primary development repo. Now I'm just wondering how on earth I should go about to pull and push between the default and the dev repositories?

    Read the article

  • Mercurial, Forget files forever

    - by Seth M.
    Is it possible in mercurial to ignore changes within an entire directory. For example I would like mercurial to not tell me that changes to the "class" directory have occurred since I don't want to version control the *.class files for my project.

    Read the article

  • Merging changes to a workspace with uncommitted changes

    - by Kim L
    We've just recently switched over from SVN to Mercurial, but now we are running into problems with our workflow. Example I have my local clone of the repository which I work on. I'm making some highly experimental changes to our code base, something that I don't want to commit before I'm sure it works the way it is supposed to, I don't want to commit it even locally. Now, simultaneously, my co-worker has made some significant improvements/bug fixes which I need. He pushes his commits to our main repository. The question is, how can I merge his changes to my workspace without the requirement that I have to commit all my changes, since I need his changes to test my own code? A more day-to-day problem we have with the exact same workflow is where we have a couple of configuration files which are in the repository. Each developer makes a couple of small environment specific changes to the configuration files, but do not commit the changes. These couple of uncommitted files hinders us from making any merges to our workspace, just like with the example above. Ideally, the configuration files probably shouldn't be in the repository, unfortunately, that's just how it has to be for here unnamed reasons.

    Read the article

  • Per directory read/write permissions in Mercurial

    - by pako
    I would like to convert my Subversion repository to Mercurial. I have a pretty big web project divided into many different folders. In Subversion I was able to set per directory permissions for a repository. For example, I could say that a new developer could only read and write a subset of all the project's directories. Is it possible to have a similar setup in a single Mercurial repository?

    Read the article

  • Adding changes from one Mercurial repository to another

    - by Patrik Hägne
    When changing the VCS for my project FakeItEasy from SVN to Mercurial on Google Code I was a bit too eager (I'm funny like that). What I did was just checking the latest version out of SVN and then commiting that checkout as the first revision of the new Mercurial repo. This obviously has the effect that all history is lost. Later when getting a bit better acustomed to Mercurial I realized that there is such a thing as a "convert extension" that allows you to convert a SVN repo into a Mercurial repo. Now what I want to do is to convert the old SVN repo and then have all change sets from the currently existing Mercurial repo imported into this converted repo except the very first commit to Mercurial. I've converted the SVN repo to a local Mercurial repo but now is when I'm stuck. I thought I'd be able to use the convert extension to bring the current Mercurial repository into the converted one and having a splice map remove the first commit but I can not seem to get this to work. I've also tried to just use convert without splice map to get all change sets from the current Mercurial repo into the converted one and the rebase the second version in the current to the last commit from the old SVN repository but I can't get that to work either. To make this clearer lets say I have these two repositories: A: revA1-revA2 B: revB1-revB2-revB3 (Where revB1 is actually a copy of revA2) Now I want to combine these two into the new repository containing this: C: revA1-revA2-revB2-revB3

    Read the article

  • Mercurial - revert back to old version and continue from there

    - by Paolo
    I'm using mercurial locally for a project (it's the only repo there's no pushing/pulling to/from anywhere else). To date it's got a linear history. However, the current thing I'm working on I've now realised is a terrible approach and I want to go back to the version before I started it and implement it a different way. I'm a bit confused with the branch / revert / update -C commands in Mercurial. Basically I want to revert to version 38 (currently on 45) and have my next commits have 38 as a parent and carry on from there. I don't care if revisions 39-45 are lost for ever or end up in a dead-end branch of their own. Which command / set of commands do I need?

    Read the article

  • Mercurial: What is the benefit of fixing errors in earlier versions

    - by Ken Earley
    According to the guide, under the heading: Fixing errors in earlier revisions, it states this: When you find a bug in some earlier revision you have two options: either you can fix it in the current code, or you can go back in history and fix the code exactly where you did it, which creates a cleaner history. How does going back in history make it cleaner? It still makes a new changeset at tip. Does it have something to do with what is recorded as it's parent? Is there a way to view the logs seeing the newly inserted changeset in that order? This lesson is under the main heading of Lone developer with nonlinear history. Is this good practice when working on a team?

    Read the article

  • Describe your workflow of using version control (VCS or DVCS)

    - by edwin.nathaniel
    I'd like to learn other people workflow when using either SVN or GIT. Please describe your strategy to handle the following tasks: Implement a feature Fixing bugs (during development and deployed app) Code Review Refactoring code (post code-review) Incorporate patches Releasing the newer version of your app (desktop, web, mobile, would you treat them differently?) Feel free to organize your answer not grouped by the tasks but grouped by whatever you think is relevant but please organize it by VCS/DVCS (please don't mix them). Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Using Mercurial in a Large Organization

    - by Kristopher Johnson
    I've been using Mercurial for my own personal projects for a while, and I love it. My employer is considering a switch from CVS to SVN, but I'm wondering whether I should push for Mercurial (or some other DVCS) instead. One wrinkle with Mercurial is that it seems to be designed around the idea of having a single repository per "project". In this organization, there are dozens of different executables, DLLs, and other components in the current CVS repository, hierarchically organized. There are a lot of generic reusable components, but also some customer-specific components, and customer-specific configurations. The current build procedures generally get some set of subtrees out of the CVS repository. If we move from CVS to Mercurial, what is the best way to organize the repository/repositories? Should we have one huge Mercurial repository containing everything? If not, how fine-grained should the smaller repositories be? I think people will find it very annoying if they have to pull and push updates from a lot of different places, but they will also find it annoying if they have to pull/push the entire company codebase. Anybody have experience with this, or advice?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >