Is it possible to emulate the behavior of 'git stash' when using fossil/bzr?
Basically I'm interested in handling the following workflow:
at some point the source code tree has state X, it is commited
I proceed to writing new code, I write it for a while and I see the
opportunity of a refactoring
I can't commit at this point, because the change I've started to make is not
completed, it is not atomic yet
at this point I would do 'git stash', would save the current work and would
get back to state X
I would do the refactoring and commit, source code now has state Y
I would merge source code in state Y with code in stash, complete the change
to make it atomic, then commit once again, pushing the source code to state Z
I think that generally it is possible to emulate this scenario when using
another SCM by branching the code in state X instead of doing 'git stash',
doing the refactoring in that branch, then merging the branch back into the
main one. But I'm aware that branching is not always a cheap operation. So are
there any better particular approaches that eventually rely on specific
features of fossil/bzr?
Use bzr shelve and bzr unshelve commands.
You can use the patch command of your system.
First you make a "stash" by storing a generated diff as .patch file:
$scmtool diff > working.patch
then reset your working directory.
later, apply the patch with:
patch -p1 --dry-run < working.patch
and then this works, remove the --dry-run to apply the patch for real.
The stash command was implemented in fossil recently. You got to check out latest fossil executable you will see stash in the available command list.
Here is the link to the web help on its syntax.
Related
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".
Technology used:
Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2015
VB.NET
GitHub
When i was altering skin in my form to design it, i was having trouble undoing my design to return back to its normal design. And as i go to my Form in Solution Explorer and clicked Undo everything had vanished including my code. I'm having trouble on how to retrieve my code ? Is there a way to retrieve my codes and my design or a garbage collector where i can easily retrieve it?
I would be so happy for your suggestions.I really need your Help.
The only way that you will be able to retrieve your old code at this point is if you did a
git push origin master
(or other branch) to github before you made these changes.
If you haven't use Git Extensions - I would suggest downloading and linking it to your github repo for this project. Git Extensions will give you a nice quick view of all your branches and what is sitting in your local repo.
Provided that you did a
git commit
You will still have your changes saved locally and this can be easily identified using Git Extensions.
If you have made the changes after you did a commit, you will see the old code in Git Extensions. From here you will be able to revert selected lines or all of the files. This is provided, that you had at least one major commit in git before this happened.
Update 1:
Based on your comment on your OP you should still have the original files in git. You should then be able to find your code easily via Git Extensions. You should see a list of changed files and from here you can revert them easily.
Update 2: Based on your comments, it appears that you have completely lost your changes. Git is a change tracker - and based on what you have said you did an Undo Changes on git. This means, that git had reset all the changes that it was tracking and went back to the last commit that you made. There is no way to get your changes back unless you had the files stored on DropBox or something similar where files are tracked on each save of the file. With git, changes made are only stored once committed. If you do an undo changes on the git repo before committing what it actually does is a
git reset
This removes all the changes and reverts it to the last commit.
I've checked and found this. I expect this should deal with your problem. Afterall, as long as you didn't intentionally delete anything, they are still in your target folder where you saved it.
If you checked in your code BEFORE the error on GitHub you can try this:(although I am not certain of community edition as I know it works on Pro and Enterprise).
Go to class in question
Right Click to get context menu
Select Source Control>History
Select a prior version
Right Click Reset>Reset and Delete Changes
This will basically say: "I don't care what happened just take me back to my safe place at this point in time with all affected files!". When performing code I cannot stress the importance to having source control and committing often.
The bzr documentation states http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/bzr-0.10/bzr_man.htm
bzr update: ... If you want to discard your local changes, you can just do a
bzr revert instead of bzr commit after the update.
However this is not what I am getting. I have new files in my repo and all I want is to have the latest revision in my working directory and to have bzr status show anything as being changed.
Is this possible?
First of all, you're looking at an extremely old version of the doc.
As of version 2.6 (current stable),
the description of bzr update is longer, and very different:
Description:
This will perform a merge of the destination revision (the tip of the
branch, or the specified revision) into the working tree, and then make
that revision the basis revision for the working tree.
You can use this to visit an older revision, or to update a working tree
that is out of date from its branch.
If there are any uncommitted changes in the tree, they will be carried
across and remain as uncommitted changes after the update. To discard
these changes, use 'bzr revert'. The uncommitted changes may conflict
with the changes brought in by the change in basis revision.
If the tree's branch is bound to a master branch, bzr will also update
the branch from the master.
You cannot update just a single file or directory, because each Bazaar
working tree has just a single basis revision. If you want to restore a
file that has been removed locally, use 'bzr revert' instead of 'bzr
update'. If you want to restore a file to its state in a previous
revision, use 'bzr revert' with a '-r' option, or use 'bzr cat' to write
out the old content of that file to a new location.
The 'dir' argument, if given, must be the location of the root of a
working tree to update. By default, the working tree that contains the
current working directory is used.
Aliases: up
See also: pull, status-flags, working-trees
Your question is not very clear.
When you're working in centralized mode,
you have a working tree you created with bzr checkout,
the bzr update command will bring in the new revisions that were added in the central repository.
If your working tree was clean (bzr status showing no changes) before bzr update,
then your working tree will be updated to the latest version (as it is on the central server),
and your working tree will be still clean.
If your working tree wasn't clean before bzr update,
then Bazaar will try to merge the new revisions on the server into your working tree,
and conflicts may happen.
If the changes you had were exactly as what the new revisions changed,
then you will end up with a clean working tree, which is extremely rare.
Most commonly,
if your working tree had changes before bzr update,
it will most probably have changes after, and possibly conflicts too.
The bzr status will tell you what they are.
It's best to not have pending changes before running bzr update.
I am looking for best practices using branches in RCS.
I had read the man page for rcs and ci and also browsed at the following links:
http://www.gnu.org/software/rcs/manual/html_node/Concepts.html
http://www.gnu.org/software/rcs/manual/html_node/Quick-tour.html
Suppose i have revision 1.3 on tip of the trunk.
I now want to change file 1.2 (as 1.3 have several other changes I cannot yet use).
I understand I can create branch on revision 1.2 using ci -r1.2.1
My question are the follows:
1. Do I need to set a lock on the file? If so, on which revision?
2. If no lock set, I cannot use -u flag in order to keep the file in my local dir. In case I wish to do so, is it still possible without co the file again?
Side note: I feel RCS does not suit my company needs however migrating to another system is not my decision to make, so currently I need to keep working with it.
I'm looking for much the same thing, but seeing you've had no answers, I'll offer my current practice:
I use branches for development, not for keeping different variants going in parallel. The trunk is reserved for my best, presumably working, code on the and I try not to check in anything there that might break it. I branch the code when I want to start a line of development that will take some time, break it for a while, is an experiment I might have to be abandon, etc.
To start a new line of development I change the default branch to a new branch off the trunk rev that's to be the base of my code, and force a checkin onto that branch, with:
rcs -b1.2.1 foo.cpp
ci -f1.2.1 -l foo.cpp
Now I can dive in to developing the branch, and my next check-ins will go onto the new branch instead of onto the trunk. Whether you lock a revision or not is only relevant to whether you intend to modify the working file.
You're correct that you can't keep both revisions, trunk-tip and branch-tip in the same folder; they have the same file name. But you can check out one of them with a -p switch which forces the output to stdout (instead of to a local file) which you can then redirect into a sub-folder, or to a local file with a unique name.
Is theere a way of finding out what changes a bzr update will do without actually doing it.
Specifially I would like to have a bit of warning if there is going to be a conflict.
Not directly that I'm aware of, that's what bzr revert is for. However, there is a common way to structure your local branches to help. I use one local branch that mirrors the central branch, then I branch off of that for my work. When I'm ready to "check in," I update my local mirror branch, which always succeeds without conflicts because I haven't changed my working copy of that branch. Then I merge my feature branch into my local mirror branch, then push my local mirror branch to the central repository.
The advantage of this setup in your case is you could use bzr merge --preview or bzr diff to see the changes if you don't want to actually try the merge. I personally prefer just to revert the merge until the conflicts are fixed either upstream or in my local feature branch.