On Sep 16, 2024, at 6:59 PM, Александр Литягин <alexraynepe...@gmail.com> wrote:
16.09.2024 19:24, Matt Harbison пишет:
On Sep 13, 2024, at 2:34 PM, Александр Литягин <alexraynepe...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hallow Matt!
i try to make some test, but i guess it take more then month
try explain what i fix here:
1) have repo:
root/ - repo with hg-subs:
/sub - hg-subrepo, from some remote
.hgsub - contains /sub=[hg]<some url>
So if I understand this correctly, your top level repo has a .hgsub file with an absolute path (in this case a url starting with http) on the right side? That’s why it’s not pushing relative to where the parent repo is pushing- you specified an absolute location. The recommendation is for the left and right side of the file to be the same (in your case “sub=sub”). Otherwise you run into surprises like this.
This is not just a surprises - i guessed using URL - that is
subrepo intended for. When you pulled subrepo from remote repo,
wich you not allowed for push - inevitable got this situation.
And here is still some ways to pass changes with a lot of boring
manual work with subrepos, that can made with mistakes.
Another situation - if you wan`t push changes to remote, but keep
it for some private work. There we get rid to using `subpaths`, you described
below.
I’m confused by all of this. Can you paste the .hgsub file here? I don’t think you meant “I guess using URL” the way I read it.
What manual work is involved here? What does it mean to push and keep changes private? That by definition isn’t private. You need to be really careful here because subrepos are lazy and push *everything*, not just the revisions that were locked into the parent repo. Secret phase is the only way to prevent something from being pushed.
It sounds like you don’t have write access to the remote subrepo- do you have write access to the remote parent repo? Can you convince the person who does to adjust the .hgsub file to use the standard sub=sub style?
2) have copy of above repo on local file system - usualy i use flash-drive. so call this copy <flash-copy>
3) try push repo into flash-copy.
current implementation push sub to it`s source <some url>. and worse - if this url not accesible, push fails.
This patch supposes that pushing into flash-copy expects passing changes from root/sub -> flash-copy/sub. And it does such push into flash-copy/sub after pushing into -> <some url>
If we run with --force - this patch ingnores failure on push to <some url>, so push -> flash-copy/sub makes anyway.
Forced push supposed success if any of <some url> or flash-copy/sub succesed.
Unfortunately, this is too complicated and breaks existing workflows.
what workflow it breaks? as i thought - hg is distributed SCM,
that is desinged for a such distribution way - via any copies. If
we got a complete copy of changes - there should be no problem?
For one, declaring a subrepo with an absolute path only pushes it to that absolute location. The only reason I can think of for having an absolute path to the subrepo is because you want to break out of the distributed model, maybe because of the size of the files in it.
For another, subrepos try very hard not to leave the remote copy in an inconsistent state. It will recurse into the deepest repo, and then push as it unwinds the stack. That way, no parent repo has a dangling reference into a subrepo revision that doesn’t exist. If an error occurs, it stops. A switch to ignore errors is a non-starter.
Subrepos can also have subrepos themselves, so this gets really complex, really quickly.
Yes, it’s a distributed SCM, but some features like subrepos and largefiles/LFS inherently have centralized SCM behaviors.
Also, I don’t think there’s an existing concept of —force => “ignore errors”.
surprised, i guessed this option exactly for errors override. Well,
some another option introduce for it?
The problem is the push failed. How would you determine that continuing to push won’t put the remote parent in an inconsistent state?
The closest thing I can think of is overriding the check that push will add a new head, and I think everyone agrees that is bad (it should have been a flag specific to that error, not disabling all checks).
The good news is that this is a known potential problem, with an existing solution. If you can’t just edit the .hgsub file to the recommended form, you can put a “subpaths” section in the root repo’s hgrc file. See the end of “hg help subrepos”, and “hg help config.subpaths” for details.
It looks not solves my problem - i need a complete local repo copy
of flash, intended for pass it on another workstation. And on
different flash-drives it can be on different pathes.
I don’t understand this at all. If it is an absolute subrepo, there’s the same https:// url in the .hgsub file in every clone. All that you need to do is replace that url with the local name. That’s the same in every clone, because you name it relative to the parent repo.
So with `subpaths
` solution i need prepare for every flash-drive a personal copy
of repo with hgrc turned for that pathes. Even with a few flashes
it rapidly goes into nightmare.
What you might be able to do is add a file with the proper subpaths config, and the use the %include directive in the parent repo’s hgrc file. Yes, you have to edit the file in each clone once, but after that it’s managed by the tracked file if anything changes. (Note that you should trust everyone who can commit to the repo if you do this. You don’t want someone to add a [hooks] config to the file, and have things run when you pull and update.)
That is why this patch designed - for easy push to into
arbitrary local-pathes. No need remember about sources, subpathes
- just point destination, and get a changes on it. That behaviour,
i guess, people expected from push.
It would be expected from push, only if the subrepo reference was relative. That’s the reason for two different reference types- two different behaviors.
My suggestion, from most to least preferred is:
1) Have the remote parent’s owner adjust .hgsub to use relative paths. Subrepos are a feature of last resort because of the ways it breaks normal distributed model, and absolute references are in a much less used area of a lesser used feature.
2) Depending on how/if you submit things upstream, if the owner won’t fix it, you might want to start your own branch with a fixed .hgsub file. Yes, you’ll have to pull and merge as upstream changes are added, but then you don’t have to deal with these issues.
3) If none of that works, make the subpaths work. This is definitely the most fragile.
Imho `subpaths
` solution could be suitable, if subpathes declared in named sets
- with name of push target. Or it alredy can?
It’s not a feature as far as I know- I’ve never used the subpaths config myself because I always use sub=sub. I only knew about it because of the tests. Even though it says that it needs to be defined in the parent config file, I’m not sure that it would filter out the config if it was in your user level hgrc, for example.
That what this patch do.
On 13.09.2024 1:55, Matt Harbison wrote:
On Sep 12, 2024, at 5:46 PM, alexraynepe...@gmail.com wrote:
# HG changeset patch
# User alexrayne
# Date 1726176902 -10800
# Fri Sep 13 00:35:02 2024 +0300
# Node ID fca662b31c85f27ecc0221c64666cafd9a9bbb97
# Parent a000ac71e41a56e3b1c7697f44e34683d0fd47bd
subrepo: hg pushes into local subrepos, after with source.
when --force claimed, subrepo push into local besides source
Can you write some *.t test to show the problem before making changes? Then the test will change with the commit, and prevent future regressions. I’m not sure what you’re trying to fix here.
Additionally, you should run the test-check-*.t and test-*subrepo*.t tests locally. I can tell this commit message would be flagged for not following the usual format. Also, an existing subrepo test might change with your change, and then you might not need to write your own test.
Thanks!
|
