During merges mercurial leaves .orig file for any unresolved file. But after manually resolving problems and marking a file correct it does not delete the .orig file. Can it be automatically removed by some command?

I work on a Mac so I can use something like:

    find . -iname &#39;*.orig&#39; -exec rm &#39;{}&#39; &#39;;&#39;

and alias it or something, but I&#39;d rather use something like hg cleanup...

UPDATE:

Since some time now, [Purge extension][1] is bundled with Mercurial and solves this problem nicely.


  [1]: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/PurgeExtension

How to automatically remove all .orig files in Mercurial working tree?

There are many SO questions that show how to view the output of a `git diff` command in a diff viewer like meld using `git difftool` or otherwise.  I am not asking about `git diff` though.

I want to see the output of `git show &lt;previous commit sha1&gt;` in a diff viewer like meld. How can I do this?

How can I view the output of `git show` in a diff viewer like meld, kdiff3, etc

Subversion, Git, Mercurial and others support three-way merges (combining mine, theirs, and the &quot;base&quot; revision) and support graphical tools to resolve conflicts.

What tool do you use? Windows, Mac&amp;nbsp;OS&amp;nbsp;X, Linux, free or commercial, you name it.

Here&#39;s a few that I&#39;ve used or heard of, just to get the conversation started: 

 * [KDiff3][1]
 * [DiffMerge][2]
 * [P4Merge][3]
 * [Meld][4]
 * Beyond Compare Pro.

(I recognize that this is sort of like the [Best Diff Tool][5], but it&#39;s different in that I explicitly focus on three-way merge tools; [WinMerge][6] is off the list, for example.)

  [1]: http://kdiff3.sourceforge.net/
  [2]: http://www.diffmerge.net/
  [3]: https://www.perforce.com/products/helix-core-apps/merge-diff-tool-p4merge
  [4]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meld_%28software%29
  [5]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12625/best-diff-tool &quot;Best Diff Tool&quot;
  [6]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinMerge


What&#39;s the best three-way merge tool?

I have two branches, default and branch1. By mistake one person in our team merged branch1 with default. The content in branch1 is not yet ready to merge with default (it contains a major rework of the build &amp; deploy environment).

We did an experiment with &#39;hg backout&#39;, backing out the merge (not sure this is the right way to do it). Then the changes from branch1 gets deleted on default, which is fine - but we can not remerge with branch1. 

How should we solve this issue?

How can I back out a merge in Mercurial and later remerge with that branch?

When I have two branches in Hg repo, how to merge only one file with another branch, without having all other files from changeset merged?

Is it possible to merge only certain files, instead of whole changeset?

Mercurial: Merging one file between branches in one repo

Treating my repository as a SVN repo, I get:

    svn co http://myrepo/foo/trunk foo
    ...
    foo/
      bar/
      baz/ -&gt; http://myrepo/baz/trunk

Treating it as a Git repo, I get:

    git svn clone http://myrepo/foo --trunk=trunk --branches=branches --tags=tags
    ...
    foo/
      bar/

I can clone baz to my local machine elsewhere and add a symlink, but that&#39;s just a hack.  Is there a way to have `git svn rebase` automatically pull in those changes when it updates everything else, just like `svn up` does?

How do I keep an svn:external up to date using git-svn?

I wonder if it is possible to use nuget to only store references to the required packages in version control (only the package.config and ignore the packages folder).

Is there a way to tell nuget to (re)download all the referenced packages in the various package.config files? Or something similar which could be put into a build script.

**Update:**

Seems that I&#39;m not the only one who requested this feature: [See this work item][1] (thanks to PHeiberg for the hint)

**Update 2:**

NuGet now has this feature builtin. See [Using NuGet without committing packages to source control][2] for details. All left is to add the packages directory to .gitignore or some equivalent of your VCS (`/packages/` will do the trick if you have it in the root of your repository and are using git).


  [1]: http://nupack.codeplex.com/workitem/165
  [2]: http://docs.nuget.org/docs/workflows/using-nuget-without-committing-packages#Using_NuGet_without_committing_packages_to_source_control

NuGet and distributed version control (DVCS)

I can see why distributed source control systems (DVCS - like Mercurial) make sense for open source projects.

But do they make sense for an enterprise? (over a centralized Source Control System such as TFS)

What features of a DVCS make it better or worse suited for an enterprise with many developers? (over a centralized system)

Distributed Version  Control Systems and the Enterprise - a Good mix?

I&#39;d like to learn other people workflow when using either vcs or dvcs.  

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&#39;t mix them). 

Thank you.

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

I think I already know the answer to this but thought I would ask anyway:

We have a file that got added to a Mercurial repository with sensitive information in it. Is there any way to remove that file along with its change history without removing the whole repo?

Is there a way to remove the history for a single file in Mercurial?

Is there any *good* way to handle large assets (i.e. 1000&#39;s of images, flash movies etc.) with a DVCS tool such as [hg][1] and [git][2]. As I see it, to clone repositories that are filled with 4 GB assets seems like an unnecessary overhead as you will be checking out the files. It seems rather cumbersome if you have source code mixed together with asset files.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience in doing this in a web development context?


  [1]: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/
  [2]: http://git-scm.com/

How do I manage large art assets appropriately in DVCS?

I&#39;m using Mercurial locally for a project (it&#39;s the only repo there&#39;s no pushing/pulling to/from anywhere else).

To date it&#39;s got a linear history.  However, the current thing I&#39;m working on I&#39;ve now realized is a terrible approach and I want to go back to the version before I started it and implement it a different way.

I&#39;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&#39;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?

Mercurial — revert back to old version and continue from there

I just did a `git init` on the root of my new project.

Then I created a `.gitignore` file.

Now, when I type `git status`, **.gitignore** file appears in the list of untracked files. Why is that?

How can I stop .gitignore from appearing in the list of untracked files?

In Git I can do this:
&lt;pre&gt;
1. Start working on new feature:
$ git co -b newfeature-123  # (a local feature development branch)
do a few commits (M, N, O)

master A---B---C
                \
newfeature-123   M---N---O

2. Pull new changes from upstream master:
$ git pull
(master updated with ff-commits)

master A---B---C---D---E---F
                \
newfeature-123   M---N---O

3. Rebase off master so that my new feature 
can be developed against the latest upstream changes:
(from newfeature-123)
$ git rebase master

master A---B---C---D---E---F
                            \
newfeature-123               M---N---O
&lt;/pre&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;

I want to know how to do the same thing in Mercurial, and I&#39;ve scoured the web for an answer, but the best I could find was: [git rebase - can hg do that][1]

That link provides 2 examples:&lt;br /&gt;
1. I&#39;ll admit that this: (replacing the revisions from the example with those from my own example)
&lt;pre&gt;
hg up -C F  
hg branch -f newfeature-123  
hg transplant -a -b newfeature-123 
&lt;/pre&gt;
is not too bad, except that it leaves behind the pre-rebase M-N-O as an unmerged head and creates 3 new commits M&#39;,N&#39;,O&#39; that represent them branching off the updated mainline.

Basically the problem is that I end up with this:
&lt;pre&gt;
master A---B---C---D---E---F
                \           \
newfeature-123   \           M&#39;---N&#39;---O&#39;
                  \
newfeature-123     M---N---O
&lt;/pre&gt;
this is not good because it leaves behind local, unwanted commits that should be dropped.


2. The other option from the same link is 
&lt;pre&gt;
hg qimport -r M:O
hg qpop -a
hg up F
hg branch newfeature-123
hg qpush -a
hg qdel -r qbase:qtip
&lt;/pre&gt;
and this does result in the desired graph:
&lt;pre&gt;
master A---B---C---D---E---F
                            \
newfeature-123               M---N---O
&lt;/pre&gt;
but these commands (all 6 of them!) seem so much more complicated than 
&lt;pre&gt;
$ git rebase master
&lt;/pre&gt;

I want to know if this is the only equivalent in Hg or if there is some other way available that is simple like Git.

[1]:https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/2007-June/013393.html

Hg: How to do a rebase like git&#39;s rebase

We now have a &quot;stiging&quot; branch, where &quot;staging&quot; seems to be a far better semantic fit. What&#39;s a good strategy for handling this?

Mercurial: Can I rename a branch?

I use GIT on a Mac. Enough said. I have the tools, I have the experience. And I want to continue to use it. No wars here...

The problem is always with interoperability. Most people use SVN, which is great for me. Git SVN works out of the box, and is a no frills solution. People can continue happily use SVN and I don&#39;t lose my workflow and neither my tools.

Now... Some guys come along with Mercurial. Fine for them: they have their reasons. But I can&#39;t find any GIT HG out-of-the-box. I don&#39;t want to switch to HG, but I still need to interoperate with their repository.

Any of you guys know a simple solution for this?

Git interoperability with a Mercurial Repository

&gt; **Possible Duplicate:**  
&gt; [Using Git how do I find modified files between local and remote](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/231211/using-git-how-do-i-find-modified-files-between-local-and-remote)  

&lt;!-- End of automatically inserted text --&gt;

How can I see incoming commits in git?  Or even better, see what I just `git fetch`/`git pull`ed?

**Edit:**  To clarify the question: someone tells me that, to get some fixes, I should pull from their repository.  My goal is to see what their changes are *before* I accept them.  `git pull` automatically merges, which is not what I want.  `git fetch` will grab them without merging, but I&#39;m unsure how to view what exactly I just pulled in.  The reason for the original phrasing is that I normally use Mercurial, where the command would be `hg incoming &lt;repo name here&gt;`&amp;mdash;a command for which git seems to lack an analog.

How can I see incoming commits in git?

I was able to clone a copy of this repo over HTTPS authenticated. I&#39;ve made some commits and want to push back out to the GitHub server. Using Cygwin on Windows 7 x64.

    C:\cygwin\home\XPherior\Code\lunch_call&gt;git push
    Password:
    error: The requested URL returned error: 403 while accessing https://MichaelDrog
    alis@github.com/derekerdmann/lunch_call.git/info/refs
    
    fatal: HTTP request failed

Also set it up with verbose mode. I&#39;m still pretty baffled.

    C:\cygwin\home\XPherior\Code\lunch_call&gt;set GIT_CURL_VERBOSE=1
    
    C:\cygwin\home\XPherior\Code\lunch_call&gt;git push
    Password:
    * Couldn&#39;t find host github.com in the _netrc file; using defaults
    * About to connect() to github.com port 443 (#0)
    *   Trying 207.97.227.239... * 0x23cb740 is at send pipe head!
    * Connected to github.com (207.97.227.239) port 443 (#0)
    * successfully set certificate verify locations:
    *   CAfile: C:\Program Files (x86)\Git/bin/curl-ca-bundle.crt
      CApath: none
    * SSL connection using AES256-SHA
    * Server certificate:
    *        subject: 2.5.4.15=Private Organization; 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.3=US; 1.
    3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.2=California; serialNumber=C3268102; C=US; ST=California; L
    =San Francisco; O=GitHub, Inc.; CN=github.com
    *        start date: 2011-05-27 00:00:00 GMT
    *        expire date: 2013-07-29 12:00:00 GMT
    *        subjectAltName: github.com matched
    *        issuer: C=US; O=DigiCert Inc; OU=www.digicert.com; CN=DigiCert High Ass
    urance EV CA-1
    *        SSL certificate verify ok.
    &gt; GET /derekerdmann/lunch_call.git/info/refs?service=git-receive-pack HTTP/1.1
    User-Agent: git/1.7.4.3282.g844cb
    Host: github.com
    Accept: */*
    Pragma: no-cache
    
    &lt; HTTP/1.1 401 Authorization Required
    &lt; Server: nginx/1.0.4
    &lt; Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:44:41 GMT
    &lt; Content-Type: text/plain
    &lt; Connection: keep-alive
    &lt; Content-Length: 55
    &lt; WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm=&quot;GitHub&quot;
    &lt;
    * Ignoring the response-body
    * Expire cleared
    * Connection #0 to host github.com left intact
    * Issue another request to this URL: &#39;https://MichaelDrogalis@github.com/dereker
    dmann/lunch_call.git/info/refs?service=git-receive-pack&#39;
    * Couldn&#39;t find host github.com in the _netrc file; using defaults
    * Re-using existing connection! (#0) with host github.com
    * Connected to github.com (207.97.227.239) port 443 (#0)
    * 0x23cb740 is at send pipe head!
    * Server auth using Basic with user &#39;MichaelDrogalis&#39;
    &gt; GET /derekerdmann/lunch_call.git/info/refs?service=git-receive-pack HTTP/1.1
    Authorization: Basic XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
    User-Agent: git/1.7.4.3282.g844cb
    Host: github.com
    Accept: */*
    Pragma: no-cache
    
    &lt; HTTP/1.1 401 Authorization Required
    &lt; Server: nginx/1.0.4
    &lt; Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 22:44:41 GMT
    &lt; Content-Type: text/plain
    &lt; Connection: keep-alive
    &lt; Content-Length: 55
    * Authentication problem. Ignoring this.
    &lt; WWW-Authenticate: Basic realm=&quot;GitHub&quot;
    * The requested URL returned error: 401
    * Closing connection #0
    * Couldn&#39;t find host github.com in the _netrc file; using defaults
    * About to connect() to github.com port 443 (#0)
    *   Trying 207.97.227.239... * 0x23cb740 is at send pipe head!
    * Connected to github.com (207.97.227.239) port 443 (#0)
    * successfully set certificate verify locations:
    *   CAfile: C:\Program Files (x86)\Git/bin/curl-ca-bundle.crt
      CApath: none
    * SSL re-using session ID
    * SSL connection using AES256-SHA
    * old SSL session ID is stale, removing
    * Server certificate:
    *        subject: 2.5.4.15=Private Organization; 1.3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.3=US; 1.
    3.6.1.4.1.311.60.2.1.2=California; serialNumber=C3268102; C=US; ST=California; L
    =San Francisco; O=GitHub, Inc.; CN=github.com
    *        start date: 2011-05-27 00:00:00 GMT
    *        expire date: 2013-07-29 12:00:00 GMT
    *        subjectAltName: github.com matched
    *        issuer: C=US; O=DigiCert Inc; OU=www.digicert.com; CN=DigiCert High Ass
    urance EV CA-1
    *        SSL certificate verify ok.
    * Server auth using Basic with user &#39;MichaelDrogalis&#39;
    &gt; GET /derekerdmann/lunch_call.git/info/refs HTTP/1.1
    Authorization: Basic xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    User-Agent: git/1.7.4.3282.g844cb
    Host: github.com
    Accept: */*
    Pragma: no-cache
    
    * The requested URL returned error: 403
    * Expire cleared
    * Closing connection #0
    error: The requested URL returned error: 403 while accessing https://MichaelDrog
    alis@github.com/derekerdmann/lunch_call.git/info/refs
    
    fatal: HTTP request failed

These are the versions of git and curl that I have:

    C:\Users\XPherior&gt;git --version
    git version 1.7.4.msysgit.0
    
    C:\Users\XPherior&gt;curl --version
    curl 7.21.7 (amd64-pc-win32) libcurl/7.21.7 OpenSSL/0.9.8r zlib/1.2.5
    Protocols: dict file ftp ftps gopher http https imap imaps ldap pop3 pop3s rtsp
    smtp smtps telnet tftp
    Features: AsynchDNS GSS-Negotiate Largefile NTLM SSL SSPI libz

Pushing to Git returning Error Code 403 fatal: HTTP request failed

I&#39;ve been using git for some time now on Windows (with msysGit) and I like the idea of distributed source control. Just recently I&#39;ve been looking at Mercurial (hg) and it looks interesting. However, I can&#39;t wrap my head around the differences between hg and git.

Has anyone made a side-by-side comparison between git and hg? I&#39;m interested to know what differs hg and git without having to jump into a fanboy discussion.

What is the Difference Between Mercurial and Git?

I often read that Hg (and Git and...) are better at merging than SVN but I have never seen practical examples of where Hg/Git can merge something where SVN fails (or where SVN needs manual intervention). Could you post a few step-by-step lists of branch/modify/commit/...-operations that show where SVN would fail while Hg/Git happily moves on? Practical, not highly exceptional cases please...

Some background: we have a few dozen developers working on projects using SVN, with each project (or group of similar projects) in its own repository. We know how to apply release- and feature-branches so we don&#39;t run into problems very often (i.e., we&#39;ve been there, but we&#39;ve learned to overcome [Joel&#39;s problems][1] of &quot;one programmer causing trauma to the whole team&quot; or &quot;needing six developers for two weeks to reintegrate a branch&quot;). We have release-branches that are very stable and only used to apply bugfixes. We have trunks that should be stable enough to be able to create a release within one week. And we have feature-branches that single developers or groups of developers can work on. Yes, they are deleted after reintegration so they don&#39;t clutter up the repository. ;)

So I&#39;m still trying to find the advantages of Hg/Git over SVN. I&#39;d love to get some hands-on experience, but there aren&#39;t any bigger projects we could move to Hg/Git yet, so I&#39;m stuck with playing with small artificial projects that only contain a few made up files. And I&#39;m looking for a few cases where you can feel the impressive power of Hg/Git, since so far I have often read about them but failed to find them myself.

[1]: http://hginit.com/00.html

Merging: Hg/Git vs. SVN

We&#39;re currently using subversion on a relatively large codebase. Each release gets its own branch, and fixes are performed against the trunk and migrated into release branches using `svnmerge.py`

I believe the time has come to move on to better source control, and I&#39;ve been toying with Mercurial for a while.

There seems to be two schools of though on managing such a release structure using Mercurial.  Either each release gets its own repo, and fixes are made against the release branch and pushed to the main branch (and any other newer release branches.)  OR using named branches within a single repository (or multiple matching copies.)

In either case it seems like I might be using something like transplant to cherrypick changes for inclusion in the release branches.

I ask of you; what are the relative merits of each approach?

Named Branches vs Multiple Repositories

fossil &lt;http://www.fossil-scm.org&gt;  
I found this recently and have started using it for my home projects.  I want to hear what other people think of this VCS.  
  
What is missing in my mind, is IDE support.  Hopefully it will come, but I use the command line just fine.

My favorite things about fossil: single executable with built in web server wiki and bug tracking.  The repository is just one SQLite (&lt;http://www.sqlite.org&gt;) database file, easy to do backups on.  I also like that I can run fossil from and keep the repository on my thumb drive.  This means my software development has become completely portable.  
  
Tell me what you think....

What do people think of the fossil DVCS?

I have a repository called `Generic`, which is a generic application. I have forked it into a repository called `Acme`, which just builds upon the application stored `Generic` repository and adds Acme Co branding to it.

If I make changes to the core functionality in `Generic`, I want to update the `Acme` repository with the latest changes I have made to the core functionality in `Generic`. How would I do that?

As far as I can tell, I am essentially trying to merge the changes made in an upstream repository into the current fork.

If it means anything, I&#39;m trying to do this because I have a generic application that I then build upon and brand for individual clients (like `Acme` in this example). If there is a cleaner way of doing this, let me know.

Git pull from another repository

I staged a few changes to be committed; how can I see the diff of all files which are staged for the next commit? I&#39;m aware of &lt;a href=&quot;http://git-scm.com/docs/git-status&quot;&gt;git status&lt;/a&gt;, but I&#39;d like to see the actual diffs - not just the names of files which are staged.

I saw that the &lt;a href=&quot;http://git-scm.com/docs/git-diff&quot;&gt;git-diff(1)&lt;/a&gt; man page says

&gt; git diff [--options] [--] [&lt;path&gt;…]
&gt;
&gt; This form is to view the changes you made relative to the index (staging area for the next commit). In other words, the differences are what you _could_ tell git to further add to the index but you still haven&#39;t. You can stage these changes by using git-add(1). 

Unfortunately, I can&#39;t quite make sense of this. There must be some handy one-liner which I could create an alias for, right?

How do I show the changes which have been staged?

I&#39;m trying to update a Git repository on GitHub. I made a bunch of changes, added them, committed then attempted to do a `git push`. The response tells me that everything is up to date, but clearly it&#39;s not.

    git remote show origin

responds with the repository I&#39;d expect.

Why is Git telling me the repository is up to date when there are local commits that aren&#39;t visible on the repository?

      [searchgraph]  git status
    # On branch develop
    # Untracked files:
    #   (use &quot;git add &lt;file&gt;...&quot; to include in what will be committed)
    #
    #       Capfile
    #       config/deploy.rb
    nothing added to commit but untracked files present (use &quot;git add&quot; to track)

      [searchgraph]  git add .

      [searchgraph]  git status
    # On branch develop
    # Changes to be committed:
    #   (use &quot;git reset HEAD &lt;file&gt;...&quot; to unstage)
    #
    #       new file:   Capfile
    #       new file:   config/deploy.rb
    #

      [searchgraph]  git commit -m &quot;Added Capistrano deployment&quot;
    [develop 12e8af7] Added Capistrano deployment
     2 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
     create mode 100644 Capfile
     create mode 100644 config/deploy.rb

      [searchgraph]  git push
    Everything up-to-date

      [searchgraph]  git status
    # On branch develop
    nothing to commit (working directory clean)


Git push won&#39;t do anything (everything up-to-date)

For a while now I&#39;ve been using subversion for my personal projects.

More and more I keep hearing great things about Git and Mercurial, and DVCS in general.

I&#39;d like to give the whole DVCS thing a whirl, but I&#39;m not too familiar with either option.

What are some of the differences between Mercurial and Git?

Note: I&#39;m **not** trying to find out which one is &quot;best&quot; or even which one I should start with.  I&#39;m mainly looking for key areas where they are similar, and where they are different, because I am interested to know how they differ in terms of implementation and philosophy.

Git and Mercurial - Compare and Contrast

I&#39;ve renamed a couple of files using `git mv`, used `git stash`, had a quick look at HEAD (without changing it) then did `git stash pop` to get the whole lot back again. My moves had disappeared from the commit list, so I redid them with `git rm` and the commit message claimed git had spotted the rename was a rename. So I thought no more of it.

But now, post-commit, I can&#39;t get at the history of the moved files! Here&#39;s what git says about the commit in question:

    ~/projects% git log --summary
    commit de6e9fa2179ae17ec35a5c368d246f19da27f93a
    Author: brone
    Date:   Wed Dec 8 22:37:54 2010 +0000
    
        Moved R_DebugUI into runtime
    
     delete mode 100644 test/R_DebugUI_iOS.h
     delete mode 100644 test/R_DebugUI_iOS.m
     create mode 100644 system/runtime/src/R_DebugUI_iOS.h
     create mode 100644 system/runtime/src/R_DebugUI_iOS.m

     &lt;&lt;snip older commits&gt;&gt;
     ~/projects%

I&#39;m now trying to get the history of one of these moved files, so I can look at an old version, but I don&#39;t get anything very useful:

    ~/projects/system/runtime/src% git log --follow --find-copies-harder -M -C R_DebugUI_iOS.m
    commit de6e9fa2179ae17ec35a5c368d246f19da27f93a
    Author: brone
    Date:   Wed Dec 8 22:37:54 2010 +0000
    
        Moved R_DebugUI into runtime
    ~/projects/system/runtime/src% 

(I&#39;ve also tried it without `-M`, `-C` and `--find-copies-harder`, but to no avail.)

I can get its history under its old name, which stops at the point it was deleted from its old location:

    ~/projects% git log --summary --follow --find-copies-harder -M -C -- test/R_DebugUI_iOS.m
    commit de6e9fa2179ae17ec35a5c368d246f19da27f93a
    Author: brone
    Date:   Wed Dec 8 22:37:54 2010 +0000
    
        Moved R_DebugUI into runtime
    
     delete mode 100644 test/R_DebugUI_iOS.m
    
    commit 32a22d53c27e260714f759ecb3d3864e38b2e87f
    Author: brone
    Date:   Tue Dec 7 23:52:51 2010 +0000
    
        Can set debug UI&#39;s alpha.
    
    &lt;&lt;snip older commits&gt;&gt;
    ~/projects%

So I&#39;m not completely stuck this time, but I wouldn&#39;t fancy having to do this kind of thing all the time. (I anticipate having a fair number of files that will move at least once in their life.)

Am I doing something wrong? The old copy of the file and the new copy are 98.8% the same (2 lines out of 166 changed). My understanding is that git should be able to track the file in this case, because it infers rename operations rather than storing them explicitly, and the files are similar enough that I believe it should consider them the same.

Is there anything I can do to fix this?


Why might git log not show history for a moved file, and what can I do about it?

There&#39;ve been several questions recently about skipping changes when maintaining release branches in Mercurial. For example:

 * [Mercurial: Branch specific changes keep coming back after dummy merge][1]
 * [Why are Mercurial backouts in one branch affecting other branches?][2]

Since it was introduced in 2.0, I&#39;ve wondered about using `graft` to avoid this problem. Given a revision tree like this:

    A---B---C---D---E---F---G---H---I---J

Suppose we need to create a release branch that skips the Evil change `E`.

    hg update -r D
    hg graft &quot;F::J&quot;

giving us:

    A---B---C---D---E---F---G---H---I---J
                 \
                  --F&#39;--G&#39;--H&#39;--I&#39;--J&#39;

 - Q1: What just happened here? I can understand that `transplant` would have generated patches out of `F::J`, and then applied them onto `D`, but `graft` is said to use the 3-way merge rather than patches. So....... how does that work? Why is it better?

Lets say I now fix `E`, and merge that into my release branch.

                      --E2-----------------
                     /                     \
    A---B---C---D---E---F---G---H---I---J---M1
                 \                            \
                  --F&#39;--G&#39;--H&#39;--I&#39;--J&#39;---------M2--

M1 is a straight merge; nothing special there.
M2 is merging branches which have &quot;the same&quot; (or at least equivalent) changes on.

 - Q2: Is this merge just a normal 3-way merge using `D`, `J&#39;` and `M1`?
 - Q3: Has mercurial stored/used extra information about the graft operation to help it with the merge?

And finally...

 - Q4: What are the potential problems with a flow like this?


 [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9532823/mercurial-branch-specific-changes-keep-coming-back-after-dummy-merge
 [2]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9500399/why-are-mercurial-backouts-in-one-branch-affecting-other-branches

Consequences of using graft in Mercurial

I&#39;m using Mercurial and I&#39;ve got into a terrible mess locally, with three heads. I can&#39;t push, and I just want to delete all my local changes and commits and start again with totally clean code and a clean history.

In other words, I want to end up with (a) exactly the same code locally as exists in the tip of the remote branch and (b) no history of any local commits. 

I know `hg update -C` overwrites any local changes. But how do I delete any local commits?

To be clear, I have no interest in preserving any of the work I&#39;ve done locally. I just want the simplest way to revert back to a totally clean local checkout.

Delete all local changesets and revert to tree

When I try to merge my branch with a remote branch:

    git merge feature/remote_branch

I got this message:

    E325: ATTENTION
    Found a swap file by the name &quot;.git/.MERGE_MSG.swp&quot;
              owned by: xxxxxx   dated: Mon Nov 12 23:17:40 2012
             file name: ~xxxxxx/Desktop/My-ios-App/.git/MERGE_MSG
              modified: YES
             user name: xxxxxx   host name: unknown-b8-8d-12-22-27-72.lan
            process ID: 1639
    While opening file &quot;.git/MERGE_MSG&quot;
                 dated: Tue Nov 13 14:06:48 2012
          NEWER than swap file!
    
    (1) Another program may be editing the same file.
        If this is the case, be careful not to end up with two
        different instances of the same file when making changes.
        Quit, or continue with caution.
    
    (2) An edit session for this file crashed.
        If this is the case, use &quot;:recover&quot; or &quot;vim -r .git/MERGE_MSG&quot;
        to recover the changes (see &quot;:help recovery&quot;).
        If you did this already, delete the swap file &quot;.git/.MERGE_MSG.swp&quot;
        to avoid this message.
    
    Swap file &quot;.git/.MERGE_MSG.swp&quot; already exists!
    [O]pen Read-Only, (E)dit anyway, (R)ecover, (D)elete it, (Q)uit, (A)bort:

How to deal with this?


Found a swap file by the name

How can I make `git push` to push not only to `origin` but also another remote repository?

as `git push` is only an alias for `git push origin`, can I alias git push to push to 2 remote repositories at once (with just that one command)?

I’m not looking for a non-git script here but would like to set this up for my local repository in git.

When I tried it with post-push scripts I failed.

git push to multiple repositories simultaneously

I goofed up a merge.  I&#39;d like to revert then try again.  
Is there a way to revert a merge before it is committed?

`hg revert` doesn&#39;t do what I&#39;d like, it only reverts the text of the files.  Mercurial aborts my second attempt at merging and complains original merge is still uncommitted.

Is there a way to undo a merge after an `hg merge` command but before it&#39;s committed?



How to abort a merge in mercurial?

After the last commit, I modified a bunch of files in my working copy, but I want to undo the changes to one of those files, as in reset it to the same state as the most recent commit.

However, I only want to undo the working copy changes of just that one file alone, nothing else with it.

How do I do that?


Undo working copy modifications of one file in Git?

I plan to migrate my projects over to git, and I&#39;m currently wondering which is the best and / or most stable option under windows.

From what I gather I basically have 2.5 options:

 1. [MSYSgit][1]
 2. git under [Cygwin][2]
 3. (aka 2.5) MSYSgit from a Cygwin prompt (given that Cygwin git is already installed).

Note: IMO Cygwin in itself is a big plus as you can have access to pretty much all the *nix command line tools, as where with MSYSgit bash, you only have access to a rather small subset of these tools.

Given that, what option would you suggest?


  [1]: http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/
  [2]: http://www.cygwin.com/

Git under windows: MSYS or Cygwin?

I&#39;m a Git user trying to use Mercurial.

Here&#39;s what happened: I did a `hg backout` on a changeset I wanted to revert. That created a new head, so hg instructed me to merge (back to &quot;default&quot;, I assume). After the merge, it told me I still had to commit. Then I noticed something I did wrong when resolving a conflict in the merge, and decided I wanted to have everything as before the `hg backout`, that is, I want this uncommited merge to go away. On Git this uncommited stuff would be in the index and I&#39;d just do a `git reset --hard HEAD` to wipe it out but, from what I&#39;ve read, the index doesn&#39;t exist on Mercurial. So how do I back out from this?

How do I git reset --hard HEAD on Mercurial?

There is a git controlled folder on a server  where the main branch is checked out and a whole pile of files have been modified and not committed. Is there a way for me to commit the changes to a separate branch so I can go back to a clean version?

ie  I want to effecitvely undo all this persons changes but store them in another chance so if that person wants their changes they can switch to that branch.

(Yes I know this is not how git is designed to work but that is my situation!) Any ideas very much appreciated.

Git create branch from current checked out master?

What are the **benefits and drawbacks** with using **Centralized versus Distributed** Version Control Systems (DVCS)? Have you run into any problems in DVCS and how did you safeguard against these problems? *Keep the discussion tool agnostic and flaming to minimum.*

For those wondering what DVCS tools are available, here is a list of the best known free/open source DVCSs:

  - [Git][1], (written in C) used by the [Linux Kernel and Ruby on Rails][2].
  - [Mercurial][5], (written in Python) used by [Mozilla and OpenJDK][6].
  - [Bazaar][7], (written in Python) used by [Ubuntu developers][8].
  - [Darcs][9], (written in Haskell).


  [1]: http://git.or.cz/
  [2]: http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitProjects
  [5]: https://www.mercurial-scm.org
  [6]: https://www.mercurial-scm.org/wiki/ProjectsUsingMercurial
  [7]: http://bazaar-vcs.org/
  [8]: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment
  [9]: http://darcs.net/

Comparison between Centralized and Distributed Version Control Systems

How do you reverse the effect of a merge on polarised branches without dying of agony?

This problem has been plaguing me for **months** and I have finally given up. 


You have 1 Repository, with 2  **Named** Branches.  A and B. 

Changes that occur to A will inevitably occur on B. 

Changes that occur directly on B MUST NEVER occur on A. 

In such a configuration, merging &quot;B&quot; into &quot;A&quot; produces a dire problem in the repository, as all the changes to B appear in A as if they were made in A. 

The only &quot;normal&quot; way to recover from this situation appears to be &quot;backing out&quot; the merge, ie: 

     hg up -r A 
     hg backout -r BadMergeRev --parent BadMergerevBeforeOnA 

Which looks all fine and dandy, until you decide to merge later in the correct direction, and you end up with all sorts of nasty things happening and code that was erased / commented out on specifically branch B suddenly becomes unerased or uncommented. 

There has not been a working viable solution to this so far other than &quot;let it do its thing, and then hand fix all the problems&quot; and that to be honest is a bit fubar.  

Here is an image clarifying the problem: 

*[Original image lost]*

Files C &amp; E ( or changes C &amp; E ) must appear only on branch b, and not on branch a.
Revision A9 here ( branch a, revno 9 ) is the start of the problem. 

Revisions A10 and A11 are the &quot;Backout merge&quot; and &quot;merge the backout&quot; phases. 

And revision B12 is mercurial, erroneously repeatedly dropping a change that was intended  not to be dropped. 

This Dilemma has caused much frustration and blue smoke and I would like to put an end to it. 

&lt;h3&gt;Note&lt;/h3&gt; 
It may be the obvious answer to try prohibiting the reverse merge from occurring, either with hooks or with policies, I have found the ability to muck this up is rather high and the chance of it happening so likely that even with countermeasures, you *must* still assume that inevitably, it *will* happen so that you can solve it when it does.

&lt;h3&gt;To Elaborate&lt;/h3&gt;
In the model I have used Seperate files. These make the problem sound simple. These merely represent *arbitrary changes* which could be a separate line. 

Also, to add insult to injury, there have been substantial changes on branch A which leaves the standing problem &quot;do the changes in branch A conflict with the changes in branch B which just turned up ( and got backed out ) which looks like a change on branch A instead &quot; 

&lt;h3&gt;On History Rewriting Tricks:&lt;/h3&gt;
The problem with all these retro-active solutions is as follows:

   1. We have 9000 commits. 
   2. Cloning freshly thus takes half an hour
   3. If there exists *even one* bad clone of the repository *somewhere*, there is a liklihood of it comming back in contact with the original repository, and banging it up all over again. 
   4. Everyone has cloned this repository already, and now several days have passed with on-going commits.
   5. One such clone, happens to be a live site, so &quot;wiping that one and starting from scratch&quot; = &quot;big nono&quot; 

( I admit, many of the above are a bit daft, but they are outside of my control ). 

The only solutions that are viable are the ones that assume that people *can* and *will* do everything wrong, and that there is a way to &#39;undo&#39; this wrongness. 



Backing Out a backwards merge on Mercurial

I need to implement version control, even for just the developing I do at home.  I have read about how great subversion is for the past couple of years and was about to dedicate myself to learning this on the side until I heard about Git being the up and coming version control system.

Given the situation, should I hold off and see which one comes out on top? What are their relative advantages?  

One issue I noticed with Git is, there are not many full featured GUIs, which is important to many users on my team.

Also, wouldn&#39;t mind suggestions on how to get started with one or the other. (tutorials, etc.)

Getting started with Version Control System

For one and a half years, I have been keeping my eyes on the git community in hopes of making the switch away from SVN.  One particular issue holding me back is the inability to lock binary files. Throughout the past year I have yet to see developments on this issue.  I understand that locking files goes against the fundamental principles of distributed source control, but I don&#39;t see how a web development company can take advantage of git to track source code and image file changes when there is the potential for binary file conflicts.

To achieve the effects of locking, a &quot;central&quot; repository must be identified.  Regardless of the distributed nature of git, most companies will have a &quot;central&quot; repository for a software project.  We should be able to mark a file as requiring a lock from the governing git repository at a specified address.  Perhaps this is made difficult because git tracks file contents not files?

Do any of you have experience in dealing with git and binary files that should be locked before modification?

NOTE: It looks like Source Gear&#39;s new open source distributed version control project, Veracity, has locking as one of its goals.

Locking binary files using git version control system

I was checking out for a *rich GUI* for Git on Linux. As of late, I have started using it a lot and find that even though command-line is very useful, I would still want a GUI at my disposal since I am not still very much aware with the advanced features.

I came across [this question on Stack&amp;nbsp;Overflow before][1], but I still have to ask this question again, as that question doesn&#39;t have my answer

* I have used *git-cola* and [gitk][2], but they look half-baked and gitk looks like I am working on some other desktop environment. All the features I require in gitGUI is not in either of them.

* I tried *giggle*, but it is more useful for watching diffs
* I tried QGit, but it is not fully complete.

Now let me tell how I want a foo-Git-GUI to look like:

* You can have a look at [`Bzr Explorer`][3]. It is highly usable and has many more features than many of the above mentioned GUIs

Is there any Git GUI which looks like the above example I posted above?

  [1]: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1516720/git-gui-client-for-linux
  [2]: https://git-scm.com/docs/gitk
  [3]: http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/explorer/en/


A pretty and feature rich Git GUI for Linux

How do I do what `svn switch` does, in Mercurial?

That is change my working directory to switch to another branch in the repository?

How do I &quot;switch&quot; with Mercurial

I have a Mercurial repository containing a handful of related projects. I want to branch just one of these projects to work on it elsewhere.

Is cloning just part of a repository possible, and is that the right way to achieve this?

How do I clone a sub-folder of a repository in Mercurial?

I&#39;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&#39;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 &quot;project&quot;.  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?

----

Related questions:

* [Git-Based Source Control in the Enterprise: Suggested Tools and Practices?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2383826/git-based-source-control-in-the-enterprise-suggested-tools-and-practices)
* [Distributed version control for HUGE projects - is it feasible?](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2476356/distributed-version-control-for-huge-projects-is-it-feasible)

All Dvcs Solutions on Gang of Coders

Total of 44 Dvcs Solutions