| rev |
line source |
|
bos@121
|
1 \chapter{Finding and fixing your mistakes}
|
|
bos@121
|
2 \label{chap:undo}
|
|
bos@121
|
3
|
|
bos@121
|
4 To err might be human, but to really handle the consequences well
|
|
bos@121
|
5 takes a top-notch revision control system. In this chapter, we'll
|
|
bos@121
|
6 discuss some of the techniques you can use when you find that a
|
|
bos@121
|
7 problem has crept into your project. Mercurial has some highly
|
|
bos@121
|
8 capable features that will help you to isolate the sources of
|
|
bos@121
|
9 problems, and to handle them appropriately.
|
|
bos@121
|
10
|
|
bos@122
|
11 \section{Erasing local history}
|
|
bos@121
|
12
|
|
bos@121
|
13 \subsection{The accidental commit}
|
|
bos@121
|
14
|
|
bos@121
|
15 I have the occasional but persistent problem of typing rather more
|
|
bos@121
|
16 quickly than I can think, which sometimes results in me committing a
|
|
bos@121
|
17 changeset that is either incomplete or plain wrong. In my case, the
|
|
bos@121
|
18 usual kind of incomplete changeset is one in which I've created a new
|
|
bos@121
|
19 source file, but forgotten to \hgcmd{add} it. A ``plain wrong''
|
|
bos@121
|
20 changeset is not as common, but no less annoying.
|
|
bos@121
|
21
|
|
bos@121
|
22 \subsection{Rolling back a transaction}
|
|
bos@126
|
23 \label{sec:undo:rollback}
|
|
bos@121
|
24
|
|
bos@121
|
25 In section~\ref{sec:concepts:txn}, I mentioned that Mercurial treats
|
|
bos@121
|
26 each modification of a repository as a \emph{transaction}. Every time
|
|
bos@121
|
27 you commit a changeset or pull changes from another repository,
|
|
bos@121
|
28 Mercurial remembers what you did. You can undo, or \emph{roll back},
|
|
bos@200
|
29 exactly one of these actions using the \hgcmd{rollback} command. (See
|
|
bos@200
|
30 section~\ref{sec:undo:rollback-after-push} for an important caveat
|
|
bos@200
|
31 about the use of this command.)
|
|
bos@121
|
32
|
|
bos@121
|
33 Here's a mistake that I often find myself making: committing a change
|
|
bos@121
|
34 in which I've created a new file, but forgotten to \hgcmd{add} it.
|
|
bos@121
|
35 \interaction{rollback.commit}
|
|
bos@121
|
36 Looking at the output of \hgcmd{status} after the commit immediately
|
|
bos@121
|
37 confirms the error.
|
|
bos@121
|
38 \interaction{rollback.status}
|
|
bos@121
|
39 The commit captured the changes to the file \filename{a}, but not the
|
|
bos@121
|
40 new file \filename{b}. If I were to push this changeset to a
|
|
bos@121
|
41 repository that I shared with a colleague, the chances are high that
|
|
bos@121
|
42 something in \filename{a} would refer to \filename{b}, which would not
|
|
bos@121
|
43 be present in their repository when they pulled my changes. I would
|
|
bos@121
|
44 thus become the object of some indignation.
|
|
bos@121
|
45
|
|
bos@121
|
46 However, luck is with me---I've caught my error before I pushed the
|
|
bos@121
|
47 changeset. I use the \hgcmd{rollback} command, and Mercurial makes
|
|
bos@121
|
48 that last changeset vanish.
|
|
bos@121
|
49 \interaction{rollback.rollback}
|
|
bos@121
|
50 Notice that the changeset is no longer present in the repository's
|
|
bos@121
|
51 history, and the working directory once again thinks that the file
|
|
bos@122
|
52 \filename{a} is modified. The commit and rollback have left the
|
|
bos@122
|
53 working directory exactly as it was prior to the commit; the changeset
|
|
bos@122
|
54 has been completely erased. I can now safely \hgcmd{add} the file
|
|
bos@122
|
55 \filename{b}, and rerun my commit.
|
|
bos@121
|
56 \interaction{rollback.add}
|
|
bos@121
|
57
|
|
bos@121
|
58 \subsection{The erroneous pull}
|
|
bos@121
|
59
|
|
bos@121
|
60 It's common practice with Mercurial to maintain separate development
|
|
bos@121
|
61 branches of a project in different repositories. Your development
|
|
bos@121
|
62 team might have one shared repository for your project's ``0.9''
|
|
bos@121
|
63 release, and another, containing different changes, for the ``1.0''
|
|
bos@121
|
64 release.
|
|
bos@121
|
65
|
|
bos@121
|
66 Given this, you can imagine that the consequences could be messy if
|
|
bos@121
|
67 you had a local ``0.9'' repository, and accidentally pulled changes
|
|
bos@121
|
68 from the shared ``1.0'' repository into it. At worst, you could be
|
|
bos@121
|
69 paying insufficient attention, and push those changes into the shared
|
|
bos@121
|
70 ``0.9'' tree, confusing your entire team (but don't worry, we'll
|
|
bos@121
|
71 return to this horror scenario later). However, it's more likely that
|
|
bos@121
|
72 you'll notice immediately, because Mercurial will display the URL it's
|
|
bos@121
|
73 pulling from, or you will see it pull a suspiciously large number of
|
|
bos@121
|
74 changes into the repository.
|
|
bos@121
|
75
|
|
bos@121
|
76 The \hgcmd{rollback} command will work nicely to expunge all of the
|
|
bos@121
|
77 changesets that you just pulled. Mercurial groups all changes from
|
|
bos@121
|
78 one \hgcmd{pull} into a single transaction, so one \hgcmd{rollback} is
|
|
bos@121
|
79 all you need to undo this mistake.
|
|
bos@121
|
80
|
|
bos@121
|
81 \subsection{Rolling back is useless once you've pushed}
|
|
bos@200
|
82 \label{sec:undo:rollback-after-push}
|
|
bos@121
|
83
|
|
bos@121
|
84 The value of the \hgcmd{rollback} command drops to zero once you've
|
|
bos@121
|
85 pushed your changes to another repository. Rolling back a change
|
|
bos@121
|
86 makes it disappear entirely, but \emph{only} in the repository in
|
|
bos@121
|
87 which you perform the \hgcmd{rollback}. Because a rollback eliminates
|
|
bos@121
|
88 history, there's no way for the disappearance of a change to propagate
|
|
bos@121
|
89 between repositories.
|
|
bos@121
|
90
|
|
bos@121
|
91 If you've pushed a change to another repository---particularly if it's
|
|
bos@121
|
92 a shared repository---it has essentially ``escaped into the wild,''
|
|
bos@121
|
93 and you'll have to recover from your mistake in a different way. What
|
|
bos@121
|
94 will happen if you push a changeset somewhere, then roll it back, then
|
|
bos@121
|
95 pull from the repository you pushed to, is that the changeset will
|
|
bos@121
|
96 reappear in your repository.
|
|
bos@121
|
97
|
|
bos@121
|
98 (If you absolutely know for sure that the change you want to roll back
|
|
bos@121
|
99 is the most recent change in the repository that you pushed to,
|
|
bos@121
|
100 \emph{and} you know that nobody else could have pulled it from that
|
|
bos@121
|
101 repository, you can roll back the changeset there, too, but you really
|
|
bos@121
|
102 should really not rely on this working reliably. If you do this,
|
|
bos@121
|
103 sooner or later a change really will make it into a repository that
|
|
bos@121
|
104 you don't directly control (or have forgotten about), and come back to
|
|
bos@121
|
105 bite you.)
|
|
bos@121
|
106
|
|
bos@121
|
107 \subsection{You can only roll back once}
|
|
bos@121
|
108
|
|
bos@121
|
109 Mercurial stores exactly one transaction in its transaction log; that
|
|
bos@121
|
110 transaction is the most recent one that occurred in the repository.
|
|
bos@121
|
111 This means that you can only roll back one transaction. If you expect
|
|
bos@121
|
112 to be able to roll back one transaction, then its predecessor, this is
|
|
bos@121
|
113 not the behaviour you will get.
|
|
bos@121
|
114 \interaction{rollback.twice}
|
|
bos@121
|
115 Once you've rolled back one transaction in a repository, you can't
|
|
bos@121
|
116 roll back again in that repository until you perform another commit or
|
|
bos@121
|
117 pull.
|
|
bos@121
|
118
|
|
bos@122
|
119 \section{Reverting the mistaken change}
|
|
bos@122
|
120
|
|
bos@122
|
121 If you make a modification to a file, and decide that you really
|
|
bos@124
|
122 didn't want to change the file at all, and you haven't yet committed
|
|
bos@124
|
123 your changes, the \hgcmd{revert} command is the one you'll need. It
|
|
bos@124
|
124 looks at the changeset that's the parent of the working directory, and
|
|
bos@124
|
125 restores the contents of the file to their state as of that changeset.
|
|
bos@124
|
126 (That's a long-winded way of saying that, in the normal case, it
|
|
bos@124
|
127 undoes your modifications.)
|
|
bos@122
|
128
|
|
bos@122
|
129 Let's illustrate how the \hgcmd{revert} command works with yet another
|
|
bos@122
|
130 small example. We'll begin by modifying a file that Mercurial is
|
|
bos@122
|
131 already tracking.
|
|
bos@122
|
132 \interaction{daily.revert.modify}
|
|
bos@122
|
133 If we don't want that change, we can simply \hgcmd{revert} the file.
|
|
bos@122
|
134 \interaction{daily.revert.unmodify}
|
|
bos@122
|
135 The \hgcmd{revert} command provides us with an extra degree of safety
|
|
bos@122
|
136 by saving our modified file with a \filename{.orig} extension.
|
|
bos@122
|
137 \interaction{daily.revert.status}
|
|
bos@122
|
138
|
|
bos@124
|
139 Here is a summary of the cases that the \hgcmd{revert} command can
|
|
bos@124
|
140 deal with. We will describe each of these in more detail in the
|
|
bos@124
|
141 section that follows.
|
|
bos@124
|
142 \begin{itemize}
|
|
bos@124
|
143 \item If you modify a file, it will restore the file to its unmodified
|
|
bos@124
|
144 state.
|
|
bos@124
|
145 \item If you \hgcmd{add} a file, it will undo the ``added'' state of
|
|
bos@124
|
146 the file, but leave the file itself untouched.
|
|
bos@124
|
147 \item If you delete a file without telling Mercurial, it will restore
|
|
bos@124
|
148 the file to its unmodified contents.
|
|
bos@124
|
149 \item If you use the \hgcmd{remove} command to remove a file, it will
|
|
bos@124
|
150 undo the ``removed'' state of the file, and restore the file to its
|
|
bos@124
|
151 unmodified contents.
|
|
bos@124
|
152 \end{itemize}
|
|
bos@124
|
153
|
|
bos@122
|
154 \subsection{File management errors}
|
|
bos@122
|
155 \label{sec:undo:mgmt}
|
|
bos@122
|
156
|
|
bos@122
|
157 The \hgcmd{revert} command is useful for more than just modified
|
|
bos@122
|
158 files. It lets you reverse the results of all of Mercurial's file
|
|
bos@122
|
159 management commands---\hgcmd{add}, \hgcmd{remove}, and so on.
|
|
bos@122
|
160
|
|
bos@122
|
161 If you \hgcmd{add} a file, then decide that in fact you don't want
|
|
bos@122
|
162 Mercurial to track it, use \hgcmd{revert} to undo the add. Don't
|
|
bos@122
|
163 worry; Mercurial will not modify the file in any way. It will just
|
|
bos@122
|
164 ``unmark'' the file.
|
|
bos@122
|
165 \interaction{daily.revert.add}
|
|
bos@122
|
166
|
|
bos@122
|
167 Similarly, if you ask Mercurial to \hgcmd{remove} a file, you can use
|
|
bos@122
|
168 \hgcmd{revert} to restore it to the contents it had as of the parent
|
|
bos@122
|
169 of the working directory.
|
|
bos@122
|
170 \interaction{daily.revert.remove}
|
|
bos@122
|
171 This works just as well for a file that you deleted by hand, without
|
|
bos@122
|
172 telling Mercurial (recall that in Mercurial terminology, this kind of
|
|
bos@122
|
173 file is called ``missing'').
|
|
bos@122
|
174 \interaction{daily.revert.missing}
|
|
bos@122
|
175
|
|
bos@122
|
176 If you revert a \hgcmd{copy}, the copied-to file remains in your
|
|
bos@123
|
177 working directory afterwards, untracked. Since a copy doesn't affect
|
|
bos@123
|
178 the copied-from file in any way, Mercurial doesn't do anything with
|
|
bos@123
|
179 the copied-from file.
|
|
bos@122
|
180 \interaction{daily.revert.copy}
|
|
bos@122
|
181
|
|
bos@122
|
182 \subsubsection{A slightly special case: reverting a rename}
|
|
bos@122
|
183
|
|
bos@122
|
184 If you \hgcmd{rename} a file, there is one small detail that
|
|
bos@122
|
185 you should remember. When you \hgcmd{revert} a rename, it's not
|
|
bos@122
|
186 enough to provide the name of the renamed-to file, as you can see
|
|
bos@122
|
187 here.
|
|
bos@122
|
188 \interaction{daily.revert.rename}
|
|
bos@122
|
189 As you can see from the output of \hgcmd{status}, the renamed-to file
|
|
bos@122
|
190 is no longer identified as added, but the renamed-\emph{from} file is
|
|
bos@122
|
191 still removed! This is counter-intuitive (at least to me), but at
|
|
bos@122
|
192 least it's easy to deal with.
|
|
bos@122
|
193 \interaction{daily.revert.rename-orig}
|
|
bos@122
|
194 So remember, to revert a \hgcmd{rename}, you must provide \emph{both}
|
|
bos@122
|
195 the source and destination names.
|
|
bos@122
|
196
|
|
simon@313
|
197 % TODO: the output doesn't look like it will be removed!
|
|
simon@313
|
198
|
|
bos@122
|
199 (By the way, if you rename a file, then modify the renamed-to file,
|
|
bos@122
|
200 then revert both components of the rename, when Mercurial restores the
|
|
bos@122
|
201 file that was removed as part of the rename, it will be unmodified.
|
|
bos@122
|
202 If you need the modifications in the renamed-to file to show up in the
|
|
bos@122
|
203 renamed-from file, don't forget to copy them over.)
|
|
bos@122
|
204
|
|
bos@123
|
205 These fiddly aspects of reverting a rename arguably constitute a small
|
|
bos@122
|
206 bug in Mercurial.
|
|
bos@122
|
207
|
|
bos@124
|
208 \section{Dealing with committed changes}
|
|
bos@124
|
209
|
|
bos@124
|
210 Consider a case where you have committed a change $a$, and another
|
|
bos@124
|
211 change $b$ on top of it; you then realise that change $a$ was
|
|
bos@124
|
212 incorrect. Mercurial lets you ``back out'' an entire changeset
|
|
bos@124
|
213 automatically, and building blocks that let you reverse part of a
|
|
bos@124
|
214 changeset by hand.
|
|
bos@124
|
215
|
|
bos@126
|
216 Before you read this section, here's something to keep in mind: the
|
|
bos@126
|
217 \hgcmd{backout} command undoes changes by \emph{adding} history, not
|
|
bos@126
|
218 by modifying or erasing it. It's the right tool to use if you're
|
|
bos@126
|
219 fixing bugs, but not if you're trying to undo some change that has
|
|
bos@126
|
220 catastrophic consequences. To deal with those, see
|
|
bos@126
|
221 section~\ref{sec:undo:aaaiiieee}.
|
|
bos@126
|
222
|
|
bos@124
|
223 \subsection{Backing out a changeset}
|
|
bos@124
|
224
|
|
bos@124
|
225 The \hgcmd{backout} command lets you ``undo'' the effects of an entire
|
|
bos@124
|
226 changeset in an automated fashion. Because Mercurial's history is
|
|
bos@124
|
227 immutable, this command \emph{does not} get rid of the changeset you
|
|
bos@124
|
228 want to undo. Instead, it creates a new changeset that
|
|
bos@124
|
229 \emph{reverses} the effect of the to-be-undone changeset.
|
|
bos@124
|
230
|
|
bos@124
|
231 The operation of the \hgcmd{backout} command is a little intricate, so
|
|
bos@124
|
232 let's illustrate it with some examples. First, we'll create a
|
|
bos@124
|
233 repository with some simple changes.
|
|
bos@124
|
234 \interaction{backout.init}
|
|
bos@124
|
235
|
|
bos@124
|
236 The \hgcmd{backout} command takes a single changeset ID as its
|
|
bos@124
|
237 argument; this is the changeset to back out. Normally,
|
|
bos@124
|
238 \hgcmd{backout} will drop you into a text editor to write a commit
|
|
bos@124
|
239 message, so you can record why you're backing the change out. In this
|
|
bos@124
|
240 example, we provide a commit message on the command line using the
|
|
bos@124
|
241 \hgopt{backout}{-m} option.
|
|
bos@124
|
242
|
|
bos@124
|
243 \subsection{Backing out the tip changeset}
|
|
bos@124
|
244
|
|
bos@124
|
245 We're going to start by backing out the last changeset we committed.
|
|
bos@124
|
246 \interaction{backout.simple}
|
|
bos@124
|
247 You can see that the second line from \filename{myfile} is no longer
|
|
bos@124
|
248 present. Taking a look at the output of \hgcmd{log} gives us an idea
|
|
bos@124
|
249 of what the \hgcmd{backout} command has done.
|
|
bos@124
|
250 \interaction{backout.simple.log}
|
|
bos@124
|
251 Notice that the new changeset that \hgcmd{backout} has created is a
|
|
bos@124
|
252 child of the changeset we backed out. It's easier to see this in
|
|
bos@124
|
253 figure~\ref{fig:undo:backout}, which presents a graphical view of the
|
|
bos@124
|
254 change history. As you can see, the history is nice and linear.
|
|
bos@124
|
255
|
|
bos@124
|
256 \begin{figure}[htb]
|
|
bos@124
|
257 \centering
|
|
bos@124
|
258 \grafix{undo-simple}
|
|
bos@124
|
259 \caption{Backing out a change using the \hgcmd{backout} command}
|
|
bos@124
|
260 \label{fig:undo:backout}
|
|
bos@124
|
261 \end{figure}
|
|
bos@124
|
262
|
|
bos@124
|
263 \subsection{Backing out a non-tip change}
|
|
bos@124
|
264
|
|
bos@124
|
265 If you want to back out a change other than the last one you
|
|
bos@124
|
266 committed, pass the \hgopt{backout}{--merge} option to the
|
|
bos@124
|
267 \hgcmd{backout} command.
|
|
bos@124
|
268 \interaction{backout.non-tip.clone}
|
|
bos@124
|
269 This makes backing out any changeset a ``one-shot'' operation that's
|
|
bos@124
|
270 usually simple and fast.
|
|
bos@124
|
271 \interaction{backout.non-tip.backout}
|
|
bos@124
|
272
|
|
bos@124
|
273 If you take a look at the contents of \filename{myfile} after the
|
|
bos@124
|
274 backout finishes, you'll see that the first and third changes are
|
|
bos@124
|
275 present, but not the second.
|
|
bos@124
|
276 \interaction{backout.non-tip.cat}
|
|
bos@124
|
277
|
|
bos@124
|
278 As the graphical history in figure~\ref{fig:undo:backout-non-tip}
|
|
bos@124
|
279 illustrates, Mercurial actually commits \emph{two} changes in this
|
|
bos@124
|
280 kind of situation (the box-shaped nodes are the ones that Mercurial
|
|
bos@124
|
281 commits automatically). Before Mercurial begins the backout process,
|
|
bos@124
|
282 it first remembers what the current parent of the working directory
|
|
bos@124
|
283 is. It then backs out the target changeset, and commits that as a
|
|
bos@124
|
284 changeset. Finally, it merges back to the previous parent of the
|
|
bos@124
|
285 working directory, and commits the result of the merge.
|
|
bos@124
|
286
|
|
simon@313
|
287 % TODO: to me it looks like mercurial doesn't commit the second merge automatically!
|
|
simon@313
|
288
|
|
bos@124
|
289 \begin{figure}[htb]
|
|
bos@124
|
290 \centering
|
|
bos@124
|
291 \grafix{undo-non-tip}
|
|
bos@124
|
292 \caption{Automated backout of a non-tip change using the \hgcmd{backout} command}
|
|
bos@124
|
293 \label{fig:undo:backout-non-tip}
|
|
bos@124
|
294 \end{figure}
|
|
bos@124
|
295
|
|
bos@124
|
296 The result is that you end up ``back where you were'', only with some
|
|
bos@124
|
297 extra history that undoes the effect of the changeset you wanted to
|
|
bos@124
|
298 back out.
|
|
bos@124
|
299
|
|
bos@124
|
300 \subsubsection{Always use the \hgopt{backout}{--merge} option}
|
|
bos@124
|
301
|
|
bos@124
|
302 In fact, since the \hgopt{backout}{--merge} option will do the ``right
|
|
bos@124
|
303 thing'' whether or not the changeset you're backing out is the tip
|
|
bos@124
|
304 (i.e.~it won't try to merge if it's backing out the tip, since there's
|
|
bos@124
|
305 no need), you should \emph{always} use this option when you run the
|
|
bos@124
|
306 \hgcmd{backout} command.
|
|
bos@124
|
307
|
|
bos@124
|
308 \subsection{Gaining more control of the backout process}
|
|
bos@124
|
309
|
|
bos@124
|
310 While I've recommended that you always use the
|
|
bos@124
|
311 \hgopt{backout}{--merge} option when backing out a change, the
|
|
bos@124
|
312 \hgcmd{backout} command lets you decide how to merge a backout
|
|
bos@124
|
313 changeset. Taking control of the backout process by hand is something
|
|
bos@124
|
314 you will rarely need to do, but it can be useful to understand what
|
|
bos@124
|
315 the \hgcmd{backout} command is doing for you automatically. To
|
|
bos@124
|
316 illustrate this, let's clone our first repository, but omit the
|
|
bos@124
|
317 backout change that it contains.
|
|
bos@124
|
318
|
|
bos@124
|
319 \interaction{backout.manual.clone}
|
|
bos@124
|
320 As with our earlier example, We'll commit a third changeset, then back
|
|
bos@124
|
321 out its parent, and see what happens.
|
|
bos@124
|
322 \interaction{backout.manual.backout}
|
|
bos@124
|
323 Our new changeset is again a descendant of the changeset we backout
|
|
bos@124
|
324 out; it's thus a new head, \emph{not} a descendant of the changeset
|
|
bos@124
|
325 that was the tip. The \hgcmd{backout} command was quite explicit in
|
|
bos@124
|
326 telling us this.
|
|
bos@124
|
327 \interaction{backout.manual.log}
|
|
bos@124
|
328
|
|
bos@124
|
329 Again, it's easier to see what has happened by looking at a graph of
|
|
bos@124
|
330 the revision history, in figure~\ref{fig:undo:backout-manual}. This
|
|
bos@124
|
331 makes it clear that when we use \hgcmd{backout} to back out a change
|
|
bos@124
|
332 other than the tip, Mercurial adds a new head to the repository (the
|
|
bos@124
|
333 change it committed is box-shaped).
|
|
bos@124
|
334
|
|
bos@124
|
335 \begin{figure}[htb]
|
|
bos@124
|
336 \centering
|
|
bos@124
|
337 \grafix{undo-manual}
|
|
bos@124
|
338 \caption{Backing out a change using the \hgcmd{backout} command}
|
|
bos@124
|
339 \label{fig:undo:backout-manual}
|
|
bos@124
|
340 \end{figure}
|
|
bos@124
|
341
|
|
bos@124
|
342 After the \hgcmd{backout} command has completed, it leaves the new
|
|
bos@124
|
343 ``backout'' changeset as the parent of the working directory.
|
|
bos@124
|
344 \interaction{backout.manual.parents}
|
|
bos@124
|
345 Now we have two isolated sets of changes.
|
|
bos@124
|
346 \interaction{backout.manual.heads}
|
|
bos@124
|
347
|
|
bos@124
|
348 Let's think about what we expect to see as the contents of
|
|
bos@124
|
349 \filename{myfile} now. The first change should be present, because
|
|
bos@124
|
350 we've never backed it out. The second change should be missing, as
|
|
bos@124
|
351 that's the change we backed out. Since the history graph shows the
|
|
bos@124
|
352 third change as a separate head, we \emph{don't} expect to see the
|
|
bos@124
|
353 third change present in \filename{myfile}.
|
|
bos@124
|
354 \interaction{backout.manual.cat}
|
|
bos@124
|
355 To get the third change back into the file, we just do a normal merge
|
|
bos@124
|
356 of our two heads.
|
|
bos@124
|
357 \interaction{backout.manual.merge}
|
|
bos@124
|
358 Afterwards, the graphical history of our repository looks like
|
|
bos@124
|
359 figure~\ref{fig:undo:backout-manual-merge}.
|
|
bos@124
|
360
|
|
bos@124
|
361 \begin{figure}[htb]
|
|
bos@124
|
362 \centering
|
|
bos@124
|
363 \grafix{undo-manual-merge}
|
|
bos@124
|
364 \caption{Manually merging a backout change}
|
|
bos@124
|
365 \label{fig:undo:backout-manual-merge}
|
|
bos@124
|
366 \end{figure}
|
|
bos@124
|
367
|
|
bos@126
|
368 \subsection{Why \hgcmd{backout} works as it does}
|
|
bos@124
|
369
|
|
bos@124
|
370 Here's a brief description of how the \hgcmd{backout} command works.
|
|
bos@124
|
371 \begin{enumerate}
|
|
bos@124
|
372 \item It ensures that the working directory is ``clean'', i.e.~that
|
|
bos@124
|
373 the output of \hgcmd{status} would be empty.
|
|
bos@124
|
374 \item It remembers the current parent of the working directory. Let's
|
|
bos@124
|
375 call this changeset \texttt{orig}
|
|
bos@124
|
376 \item It does the equivalent of a \hgcmd{update} to sync the working
|
|
bos@124
|
377 directory to the changeset you want to back out. Let's call this
|
|
bos@124
|
378 changeset \texttt{backout}
|
|
bos@124
|
379 \item It finds the parent of that changeset. Let's call that
|
|
bos@124
|
380 changeset \texttt{parent}.
|
|
bos@124
|
381 \item For each file that the \texttt{backout} changeset affected, it
|
|
bos@124
|
382 does the equivalent of a \hgcmdargs{revert}{-r parent} on that file,
|
|
bos@124
|
383 to restore it to the contents it had before that changeset was
|
|
bos@124
|
384 committed.
|
|
bos@124
|
385 \item It commits the result as a new changeset. This changeset has
|
|
bos@124
|
386 \texttt{backout} as its parent.
|
|
bos@124
|
387 \item If you specify \hgopt{backout}{--merge} on the command line, it
|
|
bos@124
|
388 merges with \texttt{orig}, and commits the result of the merge.
|
|
bos@124
|
389 \end{enumerate}
|
|
bos@124
|
390
|
|
bos@124
|
391 An alternative way to implement the \hgcmd{backout} command would be
|
|
bos@124
|
392 to \hgcmd{export} the to-be-backed-out changeset as a diff, then use
|
|
bos@124
|
393 the \cmdopt{patch}{--reverse} option to the \command{patch} command to
|
|
bos@124
|
394 reverse the effect of the change without fiddling with the working
|
|
bos@124
|
395 directory. This sounds much simpler, but it would not work nearly as
|
|
bos@124
|
396 well.
|
|
bos@124
|
397
|
|
bos@124
|
398 The reason that \hgcmd{backout} does an update, a commit, a merge, and
|
|
bos@124
|
399 another commit is to give the merge machinery the best chance to do a
|
|
bos@124
|
400 good job when dealing with all the changes \emph{between} the change
|
|
bos@124
|
401 you're backing out and the current tip.
|
|
bos@124
|
402
|
|
bos@124
|
403 If you're backing out a changeset that's~100 revisions back in your
|
|
bos@124
|
404 project's history, the chances that the \command{patch} command will
|
|
bos@124
|
405 be able to apply a reverse diff cleanly are not good, because
|
|
bos@124
|
406 intervening changes are likely to have ``broken the context'' that
|
|
bos@124
|
407 \command{patch} uses to determine whether it can apply a patch (if
|
|
bos@125
|
408 this sounds like gibberish, see \ref{sec:mq:patch} for a
|
|
bos@124
|
409 discussion of the \command{patch} command). Also, Mercurial's merge
|
|
bos@124
|
410 machinery will handle files and directories being renamed, permission
|
|
bos@124
|
411 changes, and modifications to binary files, none of which
|
|
bos@124
|
412 \command{patch} can deal with.
|
|
bos@124
|
413
|
|
bos@126
|
414 \section{Changes that should never have been}
|
|
bos@126
|
415 \label{sec:undo:aaaiiieee}
|
|
bos@126
|
416
|
|
bos@126
|
417 Most of the time, the \hgcmd{backout} command is exactly what you need
|
|
bos@126
|
418 if you want to undo the effects of a change. It leaves a permanent
|
|
bos@126
|
419 record of exactly what you did, both when committing the original
|
|
bos@126
|
420 changeset and when you cleaned up after it.
|
|
bos@126
|
421
|
|
bos@126
|
422 On rare occasions, though, you may find that you've committed a change
|
|
bos@126
|
423 that really should not be present in the repository at all. For
|
|
bos@126
|
424 example, it would be very unusual, and usually considered a mistake,
|
|
bos@126
|
425 to commit a software project's object files as well as its source
|
|
bos@126
|
426 files. Object files have almost no intrinsic value, and they're
|
|
bos@126
|
427 \emph{big}, so they increase the size of the repository and the amount
|
|
bos@126
|
428 of time it takes to clone or pull changes.
|
|
bos@126
|
429
|
|
bos@126
|
430 Before I discuss the options that you have if you commit a ``brown
|
|
bos@126
|
431 paper bag'' change (the kind that's so bad that you want to pull a
|
|
bos@126
|
432 brown paper bag over your head), let me first discuss some approaches
|
|
bos@126
|
433 that probably won't work.
|
|
bos@126
|
434
|
|
bos@126
|
435 Since Mercurial treats history as accumulative---every change builds
|
|
bos@126
|
436 on top of all changes that preceded it---you generally can't just make
|
|
bos@126
|
437 disastrous changes disappear. The one exception is when you've just
|
|
bos@126
|
438 committed a change, and it hasn't been pushed or pulled into another
|
|
bos@126
|
439 repository. That's when you can safely use the \hgcmd{rollback}
|
|
bos@126
|
440 command, as I detailed in section~\ref{sec:undo:rollback}.
|
|
bos@126
|
441
|
|
bos@126
|
442 After you've pushed a bad change to another repository, you
|
|
bos@126
|
443 \emph{could} still use \hgcmd{rollback} to make your local copy of the
|
|
bos@126
|
444 change disappear, but it won't have the consequences you want. The
|
|
bos@126
|
445 change will still be present in the remote repository, so it will
|
|
bos@126
|
446 reappear in your local repository the next time you pull.
|
|
bos@126
|
447
|
|
bos@126
|
448 If a situation like this arises, and you know which repositories your
|
|
bos@126
|
449 bad change has propagated into, you can \emph{try} to get rid of the
|
|
bos@126
|
450 changeefrom \emph{every} one of those repositories. This is, of
|
|
bos@126
|
451 course, not a satisfactory solution: if you miss even a single
|
|
bos@126
|
452 repository while you're expunging, the change is still ``in the
|
|
bos@126
|
453 wild'', and could propagate further.
|
|
bos@126
|
454
|
|
bos@126
|
455 If you've committed one or more changes \emph{after} the change that
|
|
bos@126
|
456 you'd like to see disappear, your options are further reduced.
|
|
bos@126
|
457 Mercurial doesn't provide a way to ``punch a hole'' in history,
|
|
bos@126
|
458 leaving changesets intact.
|
|
bos@126
|
459
|
|
bos@129
|
460 XXX This needs filling out. The \texttt{hg-replay} script in the
|
|
bos@129
|
461 \texttt{examples} directory works, but doesn't handle merge
|
|
bos@129
|
462 changesets. Kind of an important omission.
|
|
bos@129
|
463
|
|
bos@201
|
464 \subsection{Protect yourself from ``escaped'' changes}
|
|
bos@201
|
465
|
|
bos@201
|
466 If you've committed some changes to your local repository and they've
|
|
bos@201
|
467 been pushed or pulled somewhere else, this isn't necessarily a
|
|
bos@201
|
468 disaster. You can protect yourself ahead of time against some classes
|
|
bos@201
|
469 of bad changeset. This is particularly easy if your team usually
|
|
bos@201
|
470 pulls changes from a central repository.
|
|
bos@201
|
471
|
|
bos@201
|
472 By configuring some hooks on that repository to validate incoming
|
|
bos@201
|
473 changesets (see chapter~\ref{chap:hook}), you can automatically
|
|
bos@201
|
474 prevent some kinds of bad changeset from being pushed to the central
|
|
bos@201
|
475 repository at all. With such a configuration in place, some kinds of
|
|
bos@201
|
476 bad changeset will naturally tend to ``die out'' because they can't
|
|
bos@201
|
477 propagate into the central repository. Better yet, this happens
|
|
bos@201
|
478 without any need for explicit intervention.
|
|
bos@201
|
479
|
|
bos@201
|
480 For instance, an incoming change hook that verifies that a changeset
|
|
bos@201
|
481 will actually compile can prevent people from inadvertantly ``breaking
|
|
bos@201
|
482 the build''.
|
|
bos@201
|
483
|
|
bos@130
|
484 \section{Finding the source of a bug}
|
|
bos@200
|
485 \label{sec:undo:bisect}
|
|
bos@130
|
486
|
|
bos@130
|
487 While it's all very well to be able to back out a changeset that
|
|
bos@130
|
488 introduced a bug, this requires that you know which changeset to back
|
|
bos@282
|
489 out. Mercurial provides an invaluable command, called
|
|
bos@282
|
490 \hgcmd{bisect}, that helps you to automate this process and accomplish
|
|
bos@130
|
491 it very efficiently.
|
|
bos@130
|
492
|
|
bos@282
|
493 The idea behind the \hgcmd{bisect} command is that a changeset has
|
|
bos@130
|
494 introduced some change of behaviour that you can identify with a
|
|
bos@130
|
495 simple binary test. You don't know which piece of code introduced the
|
|
bos@130
|
496 change, but you know how to test for the presence of the bug. The
|
|
bos@282
|
497 \hgcmd{bisect} command uses your test to direct its search for the
|
|
bos@130
|
498 changeset that introduced the code that caused the bug.
|
|
bos@130
|
499
|
|
bos@282
|
500 Here are a few scenarios to help you understand how you might apply
|
|
bos@282
|
501 this command.
|
|
bos@130
|
502 \begin{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
503 \item The most recent version of your software has a bug that you
|
|
bos@130
|
504 remember wasn't present a few weeks ago, but you don't know when it
|
|
bos@130
|
505 was introduced. Here, your binary test checks for the presence of
|
|
bos@130
|
506 that bug.
|
|
bos@130
|
507 \item You fixed a bug in a rush, and now it's time to close the entry
|
|
bos@130
|
508 in your team's bug database. The bug database requires a changeset
|
|
bos@130
|
509 ID when you close an entry, but you don't remember which changeset
|
|
bos@130
|
510 you fixed the bug in. Once again, your binary test checks for the
|
|
bos@130
|
511 presence of the bug.
|
|
bos@130
|
512 \item Your software works correctly, but runs~15\% slower than the
|
|
bos@130
|
513 last time you measured it. You want to know which changeset
|
|
bos@130
|
514 introduced the performance regression. In this case, your binary
|
|
bos@130
|
515 test measures the performance of your software, to see whether it's
|
|
bos@130
|
516 ``fast'' or ``slow''.
|
|
bos@130
|
517 \item The sizes of the components of your project that you ship
|
|
bos@130
|
518 exploded recently, and you suspect that something changed in the way
|
|
bos@130
|
519 you build your project.
|
|
bos@130
|
520 \end{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
521
|
|
bos@282
|
522 From these examples, it should be clear that the \hgcmd{bisect}
|
|
bos@282
|
523 command is not useful only for finding the sources of bugs. You can
|
|
bos@130
|
524 use it to find any ``emergent property'' of a repository (anything
|
|
bos@130
|
525 that you can't find from a simple text search of the files in the
|
|
bos@130
|
526 tree) for which you can write a binary test.
|
|
bos@130
|
527
|
|
bos@130
|
528 We'll introduce a little bit of terminology here, just to make it
|
|
bos@130
|
529 clear which parts of the search process are your responsibility, and
|
|
bos@130
|
530 which are Mercurial's. A \emph{test} is something that \emph{you} run
|
|
bos@282
|
531 when \hgcmd{bisect} chooses a changeset. A \emph{probe} is what
|
|
bos@282
|
532 \hgcmd{bisect} runs to tell whether a revision is good. Finally,
|
|
bos@130
|
533 we'll use the word ``bisect'', as both a noun and a verb, to stand in
|
|
bos@282
|
534 for the phrase ``search using the \hgcmd{bisect} command.
|
|
bos@130
|
535
|
|
bos@130
|
536 One simple way to automate the searching process would be simply to
|
|
bos@130
|
537 probe every changeset. However, this scales poorly. If it took ten
|
|
bos@130
|
538 minutes to test a single changeset, and you had 10,000 changesets in
|
|
bos@130
|
539 your repository, the exhaustive approach would take on average~35
|
|
bos@130
|
540 \emph{days} to find the changeset that introduced a bug. Even if you
|
|
bos@130
|
541 knew that the bug was introduced by one of the last 500 changesets,
|
|
bos@130
|
542 and limited your search to those, you'd still be looking at over 40
|
|
bos@130
|
543 hours to find the changeset that introduced your bug.
|
|
bos@130
|
544
|
|
bos@282
|
545 What the \hgcmd{bisect} command does is use its knowledge of the
|
|
bos@130
|
546 ``shape'' of your project's revision history to perform a search in
|
|
bos@130
|
547 time proportional to the \emph{logarithm} of the number of changesets
|
|
bos@130
|
548 to check (the kind of search it performs is called a dichotomic
|
|
bos@130
|
549 search). With this approach, searching through 10,000 changesets will
|
|
bos@282
|
550 take less than three hours, even at ten minutes per test (the search
|
|
bos@282
|
551 will require about 14 tests). Limit your search to the last hundred
|
|
bos@282
|
552 changesets, and it will take only about an hour (roughly seven tests).
|
|
bos@282
|
553
|
|
bos@282
|
554 The \hgcmd{bisect} command is aware of the ``branchy'' nature of a
|
|
bos@130
|
555 Mercurial project's revision history, so it has no problems dealing
|
|
nico@321
|
556 with branches, merges, or multiple heads in a repository. It can
|
|
bos@130
|
557 prune entire branches of history with a single probe, which is how it
|
|
bos@130
|
558 operates so efficiently.
|
|
bos@130
|
559
|
|
bos@282
|
560 \subsection{Using the \hgcmd{bisect} command}
|
|
bos@282
|
561
|
|
bos@282
|
562 Here's an example of \hgcmd{bisect} in action.
|
|
bos@282
|
563
|
|
bos@130
|
564 \begin{note}
|
|
bos@282
|
565 In versions 0.9.5 and earlier of Mercurial, \hgcmd{bisect} was not a
|
|
bos@282
|
566 core command: it was distributed with Mercurial as an extension.
|
|
bos@282
|
567 This section describes the built-in command, not the old extension.
|
|
bos@130
|
568 \end{note}
|
|
bos@130
|
569
|
|
bos@130
|
570 Now let's create a repository, so that we can try out the
|
|
bos@282
|
571 \hgcmd{bisect} command in isolation.
|
|
bos@130
|
572 \interaction{bisect.init}
|
|
bos@130
|
573 We'll simulate a project that has a bug in it in a simple-minded way:
|
|
bos@130
|
574 create trivial changes in a loop, and nominate one specific change
|
|
bab@267
|
575 that will have the ``bug''. This loop creates 35 changesets, each
|
|
bos@130
|
576 adding a single file to the repository. We'll represent our ``bug''
|
|
bos@130
|
577 with a file that contains the text ``i have a gub''.
|
|
bos@130
|
578 \interaction{bisect.commits}
|
|
bos@130
|
579
|
|
bos@130
|
580 The next thing that we'd like to do is figure out how to use the
|
|
bos@282
|
581 \hgcmd{bisect} command. We can use Mercurial's normal built-in help
|
|
bos@130
|
582 mechanism for this.
|
|
bos@130
|
583 \interaction{bisect.help}
|
|
bos@130
|
584
|
|
bos@282
|
585 The \hgcmd{bisect} command works in steps. Each step proceeds as follows.
|
|
bos@130
|
586 \begin{enumerate}
|
|
bos@130
|
587 \item You run your binary test.
|
|
bos@130
|
588 \begin{itemize}
|
|
bos@282
|
589 \item If the test succeeded, you tell \hgcmd{bisect} by running the
|
|
bos@130
|
590 \hgcmdargs{bisect}{good} command.
|
|
bos@282
|
591 \item If it failed, run the \hgcmdargs{bisect}{--bad} command.
|
|
bos@130
|
592 \end{itemize}
|
|
bos@282
|
593 \item The command uses your information to decide which changeset to
|
|
bos@130
|
594 test next.
|
|
bos@130
|
595 \item It updates the working directory to that changeset, and the
|
|
bos@130
|
596 process begins again.
|
|
bos@130
|
597 \end{enumerate}
|
|
bos@282
|
598 The process ends when \hgcmd{bisect} identifies a unique changeset
|
|
bos@130
|
599 that marks the point where your test transitioned from ``succeeding''
|
|
bos@130
|
600 to ``failing''.
|
|
bos@130
|
601
|
|
bos@282
|
602 To start the search, we must run the \hgcmdargs{bisect}{--reset} command.
|
|
bos@130
|
603 \interaction{bisect.search.init}
|
|
bos@130
|
604
|
|
bos@130
|
605 In our case, the binary test we use is simple: we check to see if any
|
|
bos@130
|
606 file in the repository contains the string ``i have a gub''. If it
|
|
bos@130
|
607 does, this changeset contains the change that ``caused the bug''. By
|
|
bos@130
|
608 convention, a changeset that has the property we're searching for is
|
|
bos@130
|
609 ``bad'', while one that doesn't is ``good''.
|
|
bos@130
|
610
|
|
bos@130
|
611 Most of the time, the revision to which the working directory is
|
|
bos@130
|
612 synced (usually the tip) already exhibits the problem introduced by
|
|
bos@130
|
613 the buggy change, so we'll mark it as ``bad''.
|
|
bos@130
|
614 \interaction{bisect.search.bad-init}
|
|
bos@130
|
615
|
|
bos@130
|
616 Our next task is to nominate a changeset that we know \emph{doesn't}
|
|
bos@282
|
617 have the bug; the \hgcmd{bisect} command will ``bracket'' its search
|
|
bos@130
|
618 between the first pair of good and bad changesets. In our case, we
|
|
bos@130
|
619 know that revision~10 didn't have the bug. (I'll have more words
|
|
bos@130
|
620 about choosing the first ``good'' changeset later.)
|
|
bos@130
|
621 \interaction{bisect.search.good-init}
|
|
bos@130
|
622
|
|
bos@130
|
623 Notice that this command printed some output.
|
|
bos@130
|
624 \begin{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
625 \item It told us how many changesets it must consider before it can
|
|
bos@130
|
626 identify the one that introduced the bug, and how many tests that
|
|
bos@130
|
627 will require.
|
|
bos@130
|
628 \item It updated the working directory to the next changeset to test,
|
|
bos@130
|
629 and told us which changeset it's testing.
|
|
bos@130
|
630 \end{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
631
|
|
bos@130
|
632 We now run our test in the working directory. We use the
|
|
bos@130
|
633 \command{grep} command to see if our ``bad'' file is present in the
|
|
bos@130
|
634 working directory. If it is, this revision is bad; if not, this
|
|
bos@130
|
635 revision is good.
|
|
bos@131
|
636 \interaction{bisect.search.step1}
|
|
bos@130
|
637
|
|
bos@130
|
638 This test looks like a perfect candidate for automation, so let's turn
|
|
bos@130
|
639 it into a shell function.
|
|
bos@131
|
640 \interaction{bisect.search.mytest}
|
|
bos@130
|
641 We can now run an entire test step with a single command,
|
|
bos@130
|
642 \texttt{mytest}.
|
|
bos@131
|
643 \interaction{bisect.search.step2}
|
|
bos@130
|
644 A few more invocations of our canned test step command, and we're
|
|
bos@130
|
645 done.
|
|
bos@131
|
646 \interaction{bisect.search.rest}
|
|
bos@130
|
647
|
|
bos@282
|
648 Even though we had~40 changesets to search through, the \hgcmd{bisect}
|
|
bos@282
|
649 command let us find the changeset that introduced our ``bug'' with
|
|
bos@282
|
650 only five tests. Because the number of tests that the \hgcmd{bisect}
|
|
simon@313
|
651 command performs grows logarithmically with the number of changesets to
|
|
bos@130
|
652 search, the advantage that it has over the ``brute force'' search
|
|
bos@130
|
653 approach increases with every changeset you add.
|
|
bos@130
|
654
|
|
bos@130
|
655 \subsection{Cleaning up after your search}
|
|
bos@130
|
656
|
|
bos@282
|
657 When you're finished using the \hgcmd{bisect} command in a
|
|
bos@130
|
658 repository, you can use the \hgcmdargs{bisect}{reset} command to drop
|
|
bos@282
|
659 the information it was using to drive your search. The command
|
|
bos@130
|
660 doesn't use much space, so it doesn't matter if you forget to run this
|
|
bos@282
|
661 command. However, \hgcmd{bisect} won't let you start a new search in
|
|
bos@130
|
662 that repository until you do a \hgcmdargs{bisect}{reset}.
|
|
bos@131
|
663 \interaction{bisect.search.reset}
|
|
bos@130
|
664
|
|
bos@130
|
665 \section{Tips for finding bugs effectively}
|
|
bos@130
|
666
|
|
bos@130
|
667 \subsection{Give consistent input}
|
|
bos@130
|
668
|
|
bos@282
|
669 The \hgcmd{bisect} command requires that you correctly report the
|
|
bos@130
|
670 result of every test you perform. If you tell it that a test failed
|
|
bos@130
|
671 when it really succeeded, it \emph{might} be able to detect the
|
|
bos@130
|
672 inconsistency. If it can identify an inconsistency in your reports,
|
|
bos@130
|
673 it will tell you that a particular changeset is both good and bad.
|
|
bos@130
|
674 However, it can't do this perfectly; it's about as likely to report
|
|
bos@130
|
675 the wrong changeset as the source of the bug.
|
|
bos@130
|
676
|
|
bos@130
|
677 \subsection{Automate as much as possible}
|
|
bos@130
|
678
|
|
bos@282
|
679 When I started using the \hgcmd{bisect} command, I tried a few times
|
|
bos@130
|
680 to run my tests by hand, on the command line. This is an approach
|
|
bos@130
|
681 that I, at least, am not suited to. After a few tries, I found that I
|
|
bos@130
|
682 was making enough mistakes that I was having to restart my searches
|
|
bos@282
|
683 several times before finally getting correct results.
|
|
bos@282
|
684
|
|
bos@282
|
685 My initial problems with driving the \hgcmd{bisect} command by hand
|
|
bos@130
|
686 occurred even with simple searches on small repositories; if the
|
|
bos@130
|
687 problem you're looking for is more subtle, or the number of tests that
|
|
bos@282
|
688 \hgcmd{bisect} must perform increases, the likelihood of operator
|
|
bos@130
|
689 error ruining the search is much higher. Once I started automating my
|
|
bos@130
|
690 tests, I had much better results.
|
|
bos@130
|
691
|
|
bos@130
|
692 The key to automated testing is twofold:
|
|
bos@130
|
693 \begin{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
694 \item always test for the same symptom, and
|
|
bos@130
|
695 \item always feed consistent input to the \hgcmd{bisect} command.
|
|
bos@130
|
696 \end{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
697 In my tutorial example above, the \command{grep} command tests for the
|
|
bos@130
|
698 symptom, and the \texttt{if} statement takes the result of this check
|
|
bos@130
|
699 and ensures that we always feed the same input to the \hgcmd{bisect}
|
|
bos@130
|
700 command. The \texttt{mytest} function marries these together in a
|
|
bos@130
|
701 reproducible way, so that every test is uniform and consistent.
|
|
bos@130
|
702
|
|
bos@130
|
703 \subsection{Check your results}
|
|
bos@130
|
704
|
|
bos@282
|
705 Because the output of a \hgcmd{bisect} search is only as good as the
|
|
bos@130
|
706 input you give it, don't take the changeset it reports as the
|
|
bos@130
|
707 absolute truth. A simple way to cross-check its report is to manually
|
|
bos@130
|
708 run your test at each of the following changesets:
|
|
bos@130
|
709 \begin{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
710 \item The changeset that it reports as the first bad revision. Your
|
|
bos@130
|
711 test should still report this as bad.
|
|
bos@130
|
712 \item The parent of that changeset (either parent, if it's a merge).
|
|
bos@130
|
713 Your test should report this changeset as good.
|
|
bos@130
|
714 \item A child of that changeset. Your test should report this
|
|
bos@130
|
715 changeset as bad.
|
|
bos@130
|
716 \end{itemize}
|
|
bos@130
|
717
|
|
bos@130
|
718 \subsection{Beware interference between bugs}
|
|
bos@130
|
719
|
|
bos@130
|
720 It's possible that your search for one bug could be disrupted by the
|
|
bos@130
|
721 presence of another. For example, let's say your software crashes at
|
|
bos@130
|
722 revision 100, and worked correctly at revision 50. Unknown to you,
|
|
bos@130
|
723 someone else introduced a different crashing bug at revision 60, and
|
|
bos@130
|
724 fixed it at revision 80. This could distort your results in one of
|
|
bos@130
|
725 several ways.
|
|
bos@130
|
726
|
|
bos@130
|
727 It is possible that this other bug completely ``masks'' yours, which
|
|
bos@130
|
728 is to say that it occurs before your bug has a chance to manifest
|
|
bos@130
|
729 itself. If you can't avoid that other bug (for example, it prevents
|
|
bos@130
|
730 your project from building), and so can't tell whether your bug is
|
|
bos@282
|
731 present in a particular changeset, the \hgcmd{bisect} command cannot
|
|
bos@282
|
732 help you directly. Instead, you can mark a changeset as untested by
|
|
bos@282
|
733 running \hgcmdargs{bisect}{--skip}.
|
|
bos@130
|
734
|
|
bos@130
|
735 A different problem could arise if your test for a bug's presence is
|
|
wbunaarfubss@248
|
736 not specific enough. If you check for ``my program crashes'', then
|
|
bos@130
|
737 both your crashing bug and an unrelated crashing bug that masks it
|
|
bos@282
|
738 will look like the same thing, and mislead \hgcmd{bisect}.
|
|
bos@282
|
739
|
|
bos@282
|
740 Another useful situation in which to use \hgcmdargs{bisect}{--skip} is
|
|
bos@282
|
741 if you can't test a revision because your project was in a broken and
|
|
bos@282
|
742 hence untestable state at that revision, perhaps because someone
|
|
bos@282
|
743 checked in a change that prevented the project from building.
|
|
bos@130
|
744
|
|
bos@130
|
745 \subsection{Bracket your search lazily}
|
|
bos@130
|
746
|
|
bos@130
|
747 Choosing the first ``good'' and ``bad'' changesets that will mark the
|
|
bos@130
|
748 end points of your search is often easy, but it bears a little
|
|
bos@282
|
749 discussion nevertheless. From the perspective of \hgcmd{bisect}, the
|
|
bos@130
|
750 ``newest'' changeset is conventionally ``bad'', and the older
|
|
bos@130
|
751 changeset is ``good''.
|
|
bos@130
|
752
|
|
bos@130
|
753 If you're having trouble remembering when a suitable ``good'' change
|
|
bos@282
|
754 was, so that you can tell \hgcmd{bisect}, you could do worse than
|
|
bos@130
|
755 testing changesets at random. Just remember to eliminate contenders
|
|
bos@130
|
756 that can't possibly exhibit the bug (perhaps because the feature with
|
|
bos@130
|
757 the bug isn't present yet) and those where another problem masks the
|
|
bos@130
|
758 bug (as I discussed above).
|
|
bos@130
|
759
|
|
bos@130
|
760 Even if you end up ``early'' by thousands of changesets or months of
|
|
bos@130
|
761 history, you will only add a handful of tests to the total number that
|
|
bos@282
|
762 \hgcmd{bisect} must perform, thanks to its logarithmic behaviour.
|
|
bos@130
|
763
|
|
bos@121
|
764 %%% Local Variables:
|
|
bos@121
|
765 %%% mode: latex
|
|
bos@121
|
766 %%% TeX-master: "00book"
|
|
bos@121
|
767 %%% End:
|
