.. Copyright © 2014 Greg Ward <greg@gerg.ca>

------------------------------

Evolve: Shared Mutable History

------------------------------

.. contents::

Once you have mastered the art of mutable history in a single

repository (see the `user guide`_), you can move up to the next level:

*shared* mutable history. ``evolve`` lets you push and pull draft

changesets between repositories along with their obsolescence markers.

This opens up a number of interesting possibilities.

.. _`user guide`: user-guide.html

The simplest scenario is a single developer working across two

computers. Say you're working on code that must be tested on a remote

test server, probably in a rack somewhere, only accessible by SSH, and

running an “enterprise-grade” (out-of-date) OS. But you probably

prefer to write code locally: everything is setup the way you like it,

and you can use your preferred editor, IDE, merge/diff tools, etc.

Traditionally, your options are limited: either

  * (ab)use your source control system by committing half-working code

    in order to get it onto the remote test server, or

  * go behind source control's back by using ``rsync`` (or similar) to

    transfer your code back-and-forth until it is ready to commit

The former is less bad with distributed version control systems like

Mercurial, but it's still far from ideal. (One important version

control “best practice” is that every commit should make things just a

little bit better, i.e. you should never commit code that is worse

than what came before.) The latter, avoiding version control entirely,

means that you're walking a tightrope without a safety net. One

accidental ``rsync`` in the wrong direction could destroy hours of

work.

Using Mercurial with ``evolve`` to share mutable history solves these

problems. As with single-repository ``evolve``, you can commit

whenever the code is demonstrably better, even if all the tests aren't

passing yet—just ``hg amend`` when they are. And you can transfer

those half-baked changesets between repositories to try things out on

your test server before anything is carved in stone.

A less common scenario is multiple developers sharing mutable history,

typically for code review. We'll cover this scenario later. But first,

single-user sharing.

Sharing with a single developer

-------------------------------

Publishing and non-publishing repositories

==========================================

The key to shared mutable history is to keep your changesets in

*draft* phase as you pass them around. Recall that by default, ``hg

push`` promotes changesets from *draft* to *public*, and public

changesets are immutable. You can change this behaviour by

reconfiguring the *target* repository so that it is non-publishing.

(Short version: set ``phases.publish`` to ``false``. Long version

follows.)

Setting up

==========

We'll work through an example with three local repositories, although

in the real world they'd most likely be on three different computers.

First, the ``public`` repository is where tested, polished changesets

live, and it is where you synchronize with the rest of your team. ::

  $ hg init public

We'll need two clones where work gets done, ``test-repo`` and

``dev-repo``::

  $ hg clone public test-repo

  updating to branch default

  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

  $ hg clone test-repo dev-repo

  updating to branch default

  0 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

``dev-repo`` is your local machine, with GUI merge tools and IDEs and

everything configured just the way you like it. ``test-repo`` is the

test server in a rack somewhere behind SSH. So for the most part,

we'll develop in ``dev-repo``, push to ``test-repo``, test and polish

there, and push to ``public``.

The key to shared mutable history is to make the target repository, in

this case ``test-repo``, non-publishing. And, of course, we have to

enable ``evolve`` in both ``test-repo`` and ``dev-repo``.

First, edit the configuration for ``test-repo``::

  $ hg -R test-repo config --edit --local

and add ::

  [phases]

  publish = false

  [extensions]

  evolve = /path/to/mutable-history/hgext/evolve.py

Then edit the configuration for ``dev-repo``::

  $ hg -R dev-repo config --edit --local

and add ::

  [extensions]

  evolve = /path/to/mutable-history/hgext/evolve.py

Keep in mind that in real life, these repositories would probably be

on separate computers, so you'd have to login to each one to configure

each repository.

To start things off, let's make one public, immutable changeset::

  $ cd test-repo

  $ echo 'my new project' > file1

  $ hg add file1

  $ hg commit -m 'create new project'

  $ hg push

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files

and pull that into the development repository::

  $ cd ../dev-repo

  $ hg pull -u

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files

  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

Example 1: Amend a shared changeset

===================================

Everything you learned in the `user guide`_ applies to work done in

``dev-repo``. You can commit, amend, uncommit, evolve, and so forth

just as before.

.. _`user guide`: user-guide.html

Things get different when you push changesets to ``test-repo``. Or

rather, things stay the same, which *is* different: because we

configured ``test-repo`` to be non-publishing, draft changesets stay

draft when we push them to ``test-repo``. Importantly, they're also

draft (mutable) in ``test-repo``.

Let's commit a preliminary change and push it to ``test-repo`` for

testing. ::

  $ echo 'fix fix fix' > file1

  $ hg commit -m 'prelim change'

  $ hg push ../test-repo

At this point, ``dev-repo`` and ``test-repo`` have the same changesets

in the same phases:

  [figure SG01: rev 0:0dc9 public, rev 1:f649 draft, same on both repos]

(You may notice a change in notation from the user guide: now

changesets are labelled with their revision number and the first four

digits of the 40-digit hexadecimal changeset ID. Mercurial revision

numbers are never stable when working across repositories, especially

when obsolescence is involved. We'll see why shortly.)

Now let's switch to ``test-repo`` to test our change::

  $ cd ../test-repo

  $ hg update

Don't forget to ``hg update``! Pushing only adds changesets to a

remote repository; it does not update the working directory (unless

you have a hook that updates for you).

Now let's imagine the tests failed because we didn't use proper

punctuation and capitalization (oops). Let's amend our preliminary fix

(and fix the lame commit message while we're at it)::

  $ echo 'Fix fix fix.' > file1

  $ hg amend -m 'fix bug 37'

Now we're in a funny intermediate state (figure 2): revision 1:f649 is

obsolete in ``test-repo``, having been replaced by revision 3:60ff

(revision 2:2a03 is another one of those temporary amend commits that

we saw in the user guide)—but ``dev-repo`` knows nothing of these

recent developments.

  [figure SG02: test-repo has rev 0:0dc9 public, rev 1:f649, 2:2a03 obsolete, rev 3:60ff draft; dev-repo same as in SG01]

Let's resynchronize::

  $ cd ../dev-repo

  $ hg pull -u

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)

  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

As seen in figure 3, this transfers the new changeset *and* the

obsolescence marker for revision 1. However, it does *not* transfer

the temporary amend commit, because it is hidden. Push and pull

transfer obsolesence markers between repositories, but they do not

transfer hidden changesets.

  [figure SG03: dev-repo grows new rev 2:60ff, marks 1:f649 obsolete]

Because of this deliberately incomplete synchronization, revision

numbers in ``test-repo`` and ``dev-repo`` are no longer consistent. We

*must* use changeset IDs.

Example 2: Amend again, locally

===============================

This process can repeat. Perhaps you figure out a more elegant fix to

the bug, and want to mutate history so nobody ever knows you had a

less-than-perfect idea. We'll implement it locally in ``dev-repo`` and

push to ``test-repo``::

  $ echo 'Fix, fix, and fix.' > file1

  $ hg amend

  $ hg push

This time around, the temporary amend commit is in ``dev-repo``, and

it is not transferred to ``test-repo``—the same as before, just in the

opposite direction. Figure 4 shows the two repositories after amending

in ``dev-repo`` and pushing to ``test-repo``.

  [figure SG04: each repo has one temporary amend commit, but they're different in each one]

Let's hop over to ``test-repo`` to test the more elegant fix::

  $ cd ../test-repo

  $ hg update

  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

This bug fix is finished, so we push it to the public repository::

  $ hg push

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files

Note that only one changeset—the final version, after two

amendments—was actually pushed. Again, Mercurial doesn't transfer

hidden changesets on push and pull.

.. _`concept guide`: concepts.html

So the picture in ``public`` is much simpler than in either

  [figure SG05: public repo with rev 0:0dc9, 1:de61, both public]

There is one important step left to do. Because we pushed from

``test-repo`` to ``public``, the pushed changeset is in *public* phase

in those two repositories. But ``dev-repo`` knows nothing of this:

that changeset is still *draft* there. If we're not careful, we might

mutate history in ``dev-repo``, obsoleting a changeset that is already

public. Let's avoid that situation for now by pulling from

``test-repo`` down to ``dev-repo``::

  $ cd ../dev-repo

  $ hg pull -u

  [...]

  no changes found

Even though no *changesets* were pulled, Mercurial still pulled

obsolescence markers from ``test-repo``.

Sharing with multiple developers: code review

---------------------------------------------

Now that you know how to share your own mutable history across

multiple computers, you might be wondering if it makes sense to share

mutable history with others. It does, but you have to be careful, stay

alert, and *communicate* with your peers.

A good way to start is with code review: Alice commits a draft

changeset that Bob can review. Bob sends his comments to Alice, and

she amends it until Bob is satisfied. Meanwhile, Bob is also

committing draft changesets for Alice to review, amending until she is

satisfied. Once a particular changeset passes review, the respective

author (Alice or Bob) pushes it to the public repository.

Setting up

==========

To demonstrate, let's start with the ``public`` repository as we left

it in the last example, with two immutable changesets (figure 5

above). We'll clone a ``review`` repository from it, and then Alice

and Bob will both clone from ``review``. ::

  $ hg clone public review

  updating to branch default

  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

  $ hg clone review alice

  updating to branch default

  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

  $ hg clone review bob

  updating to branch default

  1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved

We need to configure Alice's and Bob's working repositories similar to

``test-repo``, i.e. make them non-publishing and enable ``evolve``.

First, edit Alice's configuration with ::

  $ hg -R alice config --edit --local

and add ::

  [extensions]

  evolve = /path/to/mutable-history/hgext/evolve.py

Then add the same text to Bob's repository configuration::

  $ hg -R bob config --edit --local

Example 3: Alice commits and amends a draft fix

===============================================

We'll start by following Alice working on a bug fix. We're going to

use bookmarks to make it easier to understand multiple branch heads in

the ``review`` repository, so Alice starts off by creating a bookmark

and committing her first attempt at a fix::

  $ hg bookmark bug15

  $ echo 'fix' > file2

  $ hg commit -A -u alice -m 'fix bug 15 (v1)'

  adding file2

Note the unorthodox "(v1)" in the commit message. We're just using

that to make this tutorial easier to follow; it's not something we'd

recommend in real life.

Of course Alice wouldn't commit unless her fix worked to her

satisfaction, so it must be time to solicit a code review. She does

this by pushing to the ``review`` repository::

  $ hg push -B bug15

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files

  exporting bookmark bug15

(The use of ``-B`` is important to ensure that we only push the

bookmarked head, and that the bookmark itself is pushed. See this

`guide to bookmarks`_, especially the `Sharing Bookmarks`_ section, if

you're not familiar with bookmarks.)

.. _`guide to bookmarks`: http://mercurial.aragost.com/kick-start/en/bookmarks/

.. _`Sharing Bookmarks`: http://mercurial.aragost.com/kick-start/en/bookmarks/#sharing-bookmarks

Some time passes, and Alice receives her code review. (It might be by

email, telephone, or carrier pigeon: it doesn't matter, as it's

outside the scope of Mercurial.) As a result, Alice revises her fix

and submits it for a second review::

  $ echo 'Fix.' > file2

  $ hg amend -m 'fix bug 15 (v2)'

  $ hg push

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)

  updating bookmark bug15

Figure 6 shows the state of the ``review`` repository at this point.

After a hard morning of bug fixing, Alice stops for lunch. Let's see

what Bob has been up to.

Example 4: Bob implements and publishes a new feature

=====================================================

In the meantime, Bob has been working on a new feature. Like Alice,

he'll use a bookmark to track his work, and he'll push that bookmark

to the ``review`` repository, so that reviewers know which changesets

to review. ::

  $ cd ../bob

  $ echo 'stuff' > file1

  $ hg bookmark featureX

  $ hg commit -u bob -m 'implement feature X (v1)'

  $ hg push -B featureX

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)

  exporting bookmark featureX

When Bob receives his code review, he improves his implementation a

bit, amends, and submits the resulting changeset for review::

  $ echo 'do stuff' > file1

  $ hg amend -m 'implement feature X (v2)'

  $ hg push

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)

  updating bookmark featureX

Unfortunately, that still doesn't pass muster. Bob's reviewer insists

on proper capitalization and punctuation. ::

  $ echo 'Do stuff.' > file1

  $ hg amend -m 'implement feature X (v3)'

On the bright side, the second review said, "Go ahead and publish once

you fix that." So Bob immediately publishes his third attempt::

  $ hg push ../public

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files

Bob also has to update the ``review`` repository: right now it doesn't

have his latest amendment ("v3", revision 6:540b), and it doesn't know

that the precursor of that changeset ("v2", revision 5:0eb7) is

obsolete. ::

  $ hg push ../review

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)

  updating bookmark featureX

Figure 7 shows the result of Bob's work in both ``review`` and

``public``.

Incidentally, it's important that Bob push to ``public`` *before*

``review``. If he pushed to ``review`` first, then revision 6:540b

would still be in *draft* phase in ``review``, but it would be

*public* in both Bob's local repository and the ``public`` repository.

That could lead to confusion at some point, which is easily avoided by

pushing first to ``public``.

Example 5: Alice integrates and publishes

=========================================

Finally, Alice gets back from lunch and sees that the carrier pigeon

with her second review has arrived (or maybe she just has it in her

email inbox). Alice's amended changeset has passed review, so she

pushes her fix to ``public``::

  $ hg push ../public

  [...]

  remote has heads on branch 'default' that are not known locally: 540ba8f317e6

  abort: push creates new remote head cbdfbd5a5db2!

  (pull and merge or see "hg help push" for details about pushing new heads)

Oops! Bob has won the race to push first to ``public``. So Alice needs

to integrate with Bob: let's pull his changeset(s) and see what the

branch heads are. ::

  $ hg pull ../public

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads)

  (run 'hg heads' to see heads, 'hg merge' to merge)

  $ hg log -G -q -r 'head()' --template '{rev}:{node|short}  ({author})\n'

  o  5:540ba8f317e6  (bob)

  |

  | @  4:cbdfbd5a5db2  (alice)

  |/

Since Alice and Bob are already using advanced technology in the form

of shared mutable history, we'll assume they are perfectly comfortable

with rebasing changesets. So Alice rebases her changeset on top of

Bob's and publishes the result::

  $ hg rebase -d 5

  $ hg push ../public

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files

  $ hg push ../review

  [...]

  added 1 changesets with 0 changes to 0 files

  updating bookmark bug15

The result, in both ``review`` and ``public`` repositories, is shown

in figure 8.