Distributed Source Control - pushing individual changesets?

In the specific case you're describing: I want to push changeset 1 to Master as soon as possible, and not wait for verification to changeset 2, especially since changeset 3 could be being introduced in the meantime all you need to do is hg push -r cset1 where cset1 is the revision number or node hash of the cset you want When you push with r it pushes that changes and all of its ancestors so you can push changeset 1 without pushing changeset2, but not changeset 2 without pushing changeset 1 If you need to push them out of order (two but not one) then you're into cherry picking with the TransplantExtension, but so long as you're going in order you've got an easy option (Note that to avoid the "two but not one" scenario the best plan is to have whomever wrote feature two do a hg update zero first. That way two and one will be siblings (both kids of zero) rather than parent-child, which more naturally reflects their true relationship, if indeed they are separable features. This can be done explicitly with branching, but doing it strictly with changeset parentage is a perfectly valid mode of operation too.).

In the specific case you're describing: I want to push changeset 1 to Master as soon as possible, and not wait for verification to changeset 2, especially since changeset 3 could be being introduced in the meantime. All you need to do is hg push -r cset1 where cset1 is the revision number or node hash of the cset you want. When you push with -r it pushes that changes and all of its ancestors, so you can push changeset 1 without pushing changeset2, but not changeset 2 without pushing changeset 1.

If you need to push them out of order (two but not one) then you're into cherry picking with the TransplantExtension, but so long as you're going in order you've got an easy option. (Note that to avoid the "two but not one" scenario the best plan is to have whomever wrote feature two do a hg update zero first. That way two and one will be siblings (both kids of zero) rather than parent-child, which more naturally reflects their true relationship, if indeed they are separable features.

This can be done explicitly with branching, but doing it strictly with changeset parentage is a perfectly valid mode of operation too. ).

TeamA TeamB Master When TeamA is ready to push changes, you merge TeamA into master, and when TeamB is ready, you merge TeamB into master. Periodically down the line both TeamA & TeamB Should Fetch/Merge from Master to make sure thier versions have the latest code. If you need more examples look at how Gitorious/Github are set up.

Each developer has thier own clone of the project, then when they're ready they apply to be merged into the master repo. This same principle can be applied to Merc, the key is making sure you fetch/merge to the Team Repos (Developer Repos) often to make sure new code is introduced to thier dev cycle.

The problem with this in HG is its so easy to end up with unresolved heads between merges. – Tim Post? May 4 '10 at 19:02 I understand this - the issue is that I don't really want "red" to have to be stable to push changesets from "red" into trunk.So I don't want to push the entire clone back into master, just the "cherry-picked" changesets.

– NickAtuShip May 4 '10 at 19:05 You don't have to pull, it's just best practice for less collision when you merge changesets into trunk. – Aren May 4 '10 at 19:13 Pulling changes back from master isnt the issue - the issue is when there are 2 changesets pushed into Red, and I want to push just one of them into master. How best do I manage that?

Quilt? – NickAtuShip May 4 '10 at 19:19.

I'm not familiar with branching in mercurial, but here's how you'd do it in SVN - i'm sure there's an equivalent. You need to set up branches, and instead merge changesets into /trunk. This allows you to pick and choose which revisions go out, rather than just having to do "svn up" and get them all.

For example, you could have something like /branches/dev /trunk In this case, /trunk is assumed to be the current stable code, which would run on production. Say you only wanted to push red team's revision 100, and blue team's revision 110. From inside /trunk, you would do: svn merge /branches/dev -r 99:100 svn merge /branches/dev -r 109:110 And only the changes made in those specific revisions would be merged into /trunk.

He's using Mercurial, just explaining in SVN terms, which is completely confusing. I don't think he's using branches. – Tim Post?

May 4 '10 at 19:01 I know, but as I'm unfamiliar with Mercurial syntax, I thought I'd at least try and convey the idea of branching and merging. S scenario is exactly what branches are for. – Harold1983- May 4 '10 at 19:16 @Tim, while I agree trying to answer it in SVN is confusing, I think he may have a point about branches.

Especially if TeamA and TeamB are really just different features being implemented. No need for multiple repos, just team/feature branches. – jcordasc May 4 '10 at 20:12 Well - in mercurial and git, a clone of the repo basically is a branch.

– NickAtuShip May 4 '10 at 20:59.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.