I'm trying to setup Mercurial on developer workstations so that they can pull from each other.
I don't want to push.
I know each workstation needs to run
hg serve
The format of the pull command is
hg pull ssh:[SOURCE]
What I'm having problem with is defining SOURCE, and any other permission issues.
I would believe that SOURCE ends with the name of the repository being pulled from. What I don't know is form the host name. Can I use IPs instead?
What permission issues do I need to look out for?
SOURCE == //<hostname>/<repository>
All developers or test stations are running Windows 7 or Windows XP.
I have searched for this answer and have come up empty. I did look at all the questions suggested by SO as I typed this question.
This is probably a simple Windows concept, but I'm not an expert in simple Windows concepts. :)
The hg help urls output has these examples:
Valid URLs are of the form:
local/filesystem/path[#revision]
file://local/filesystem/path[#revision]
http://[user[:pass]#]host[:port]/[path][#revision]
https://[user[:pass]#]host[:port]/[path][#revision]
ssh://[user#]host[:port]/[path][#revision]
and a lot of info about what can be used for each component (host can be anything that your dns resolver resolves or a ipv4 or ipv6 address. I beleive on windows systems UNC paths count.
Also, you appear to have some confusion about when you can use ssh. You can use ssh:// URLs to access repositories on the file systems of systems that are running ssh servers. If they're running hg serve then you can access them using the http:// URL that hg serve gives you when you start it. It's usually used for quick "here grab this from me and see if you can tell me what I'm doing wrong" situations rather than for all-the-time sharing.
Related
Say I've got an upstream repo (origin) that was added with
git remote add origin file:////upstream.host/repo.git
The repo.git is acually a windows shared folder where I and my dev colleagues have r/w access assigned.
Now, I want to set up a post-receive hook on upstream.host that notifies Trac about freshly pushed revisions for automatic ticket updating. Basically, this is done by calling an executable on upstream.host that does some work in the database there.
However, I notified that the hook for some reason doesn't work.
So I've set up the hook to print everything she's doing to D:/temp/post-receive.log and issued a git push in order to trigger the hook.
When I looked into D:/temp on upstream.host, there was no logfile created.
Then, another question of me came into mind: https://superuser.com/questions/974337/when-i-run-a-git-hook-in-a-repo-on-a-network-share-which-binaries-are-used.
When actually the binaries of my machine are used for executing the hook, maybe also the paths of my machine are used. I looked into D:/temp and voilá, here we have the post-receive.log.
I traced the pwd to the logfile and it is not D:/repos/repo.git (what I expected) but actually is //upstream.host/repo.git. Obviously the whole hook is executed in the context of the pusher's machine and not in the context of the repo machine (upstream.host).
This is no problem for me since I have admin access to the remote machine and could use administrative shares in order to get my hook going (i.e. \\upstream.host\D$\repos\repo.git etc). But this is an issue for my colleagues since they are plain users and no roots.
How do I set up my post-receive hook properly so that it works as expected?
How do I force my hook to be entirely run on the remote machine without using anything from my machine?
Do I really have to implement a real server hosting my repo? Or are there other ways that don't need a server?
a post-receive hook is run after receiving data on the machine that is hosting the repository.
now the machine that is "hosting the repository" is not the file-server where the actual packed-refs and other git database files are stored. (this file-server could be anything from a redundant cloud-based storage appliance to any old NAS-enabled "network disk").
Instead it is the machine that runs the "git frontend" (that is, the git commands that actually interact with the database).
Now you are using a "network share" to host your (remote) git repository. For your computer (the client), this is just another disk device (like your floppy) and the git on your client will happily store database-files there, and run any hooks. But this is your computer, since it is being told to run the remote locally - simply because the file:// protocol does mean "local".
Btw, the fact that your remote is named upstream.host is meaningless: this name is only there for you to keep track of multiple remotes, but it could be called thursday.next instead.
So there is no way to run any script on the file-server that happens to store some files names pack-refs and similar.
If you want to have a git server to run hooks for you, you must have a git server first. Even worse: if you want a git server on machineX to run scripts on machineX, you must install a git server on machineX first.
The good news: there is no need to "implement a real server". Just install a pre-existing one. You will find docuementation about that in the Git Book, but for starters it's basically enough to have git (for interaction with the database) and sshd (for secure communication via the network; and for calling git when appropriate) installed.
Finally: i'm actually quite glad that you need to have software (e.g. a server) running on the remote end to execute code there. Just imagine what it would mean if copying some html files to your USB disk would suddenly spawn a web server out of thin air. Not to think of w32-virusses breeding happily on my linux NAS...
We are a team of less than ten persons that need to quickly set up a git server that supports active directory based authentication.
The simplest solution seems to be to use a file share with a bare git repository and reaching it using a unc path, e.g.
git clone //server/share/repo.git
However, we are a bit worried about robustness. Are there no issues with concurrency when several people use the same git repository and there is no actual server component running?
Clients are running windows 7, server is Windows Server 2008R2. Using msysgit 1.8.1.2
(I am well aware that there are many other git server solutions, but, especially given the requirement of AD authentication, they are not as simple to set up)
It seems the only times the AR Auth will be in play is pushing/pulling.
When you clone the git repo, the entire history will be cloned as well, so every user will have a complete repo.
If the file share fails, any user can replace the code on a new share by pushing their code up.
Concurrency is not an issue - since git is distributed it handles concurrency differently from other VCSs: no file locks, etc.
I have a strange SVN server configuration issue I cannot figure out.
A previous employee setup Collabnet svn server (version 1.6.9) on a windows server at work which we use for development. It's a great system, love using it.
We use a local LAN path for the repository with all our various folders, like this...
"svn://server1"
It has one repository called "repo".
I have recently installed a second SVN on another server (same version, same OS)
It has one repository called "main". In order to access it I have to use the svn path of ...
"svn://server2/main"
So the question is.... does anyone know how we ended up with one server requiring to use a "repo name" after the server name (and does not work without it) and one server not requiring a "repo name" (and does not work with it)?
The main reason for asking is I also need to setup additional repositories on the original server and do not want to affect the current configuration. I assume this is some level or option or configuration or a "default repo" setting or something, but I just can't seem to find where and how it was set.
Check the entry in your conf file. If you have your svn information within a location tag, the location is the only way to access the repository.
Our team consists of 3 people and we want to use Mercurial for the verison control of our codes.
The problem is that we don't have a common server that we all have access to.
Is there a way to make one of the users the host of the repository, so that others can connect him to work on the code?
We're all using Windows 7, if it matters.
Because mercurial is a distributed version control system, you don't have to have a central server, as you can clone, push and pull between one another.
But, you could look at creating a central repository on bitbucket at no cost for up to 5 users.
Yes, just run hg serve in that host & directory. If you have IP access you'll be able to work with it. You'll need to set the web.allow_push option to * to enable the remote push.
Another option is to run hg serve on all the workstations and only pull from one another, never push.
What is the best way to get dev and test browsers to resolve our production domain name to dev and test environments? Say our production domain is widgets.com. In the past, we've used internal DNS for devwidgets.com, testwidgets.com, demowidgets.com, etc. But this is proving to be big pain. Seems better to have a host file or proxy server setup so each client can choose to resolve widgets.com to each pre-prod environment. Ideas? How have others solved this problem?
You can run different versions on different ports (easiest for internal and external setup) or on different cnames (for external setup):
dev.widgets.com:81
dev.widgets.com:82
...
dev1.widgets.com
dev2.widgets.com
...
This means that the different environments can be configured centrally through the web server rather than having to manage lots of different host files.
We have solved it by using internal dns, like you said. Each developer has his own environment, so I can goto www.ordomain.com.branch2.environment10, where environment10 is my specific environment, and branch2 refers to a specific checkout, in case I got multiple checkouts because I'm working on different projects simultaniously. Just the different environment may suffice for you.
In another situation I've configured a different cname, using dev.widgets.com for remotely getting to my development environment. Disadvantage is that anyone can reach it, so you should password protect it, or use an IP filter.
I wouldn't recomment using hosts files. This is hard to maintain, and you can't reach the live environment from your development pc.