Table of Contents
As a completely decentralised tool, Mercurial doesn't impose any policy on how people ought to work with each other. However, if you're new to distributed revision control, it helps to have some tools and examples in mind when you're thinking about possible workflow models.
For interactive use, the web interface lets you browse a single repository or a collection of repositories. You can view the history of a repository, examine each change (comments and diffs), and view the contents of each directory and file. You can even get a view of history that gives a graphical view of the relationships between individual changes and merges.
Also for human consumption, the web interface provides Atom and RSS feeds of the changes in a repository. This lets you “subscribe” to a repository using your favorite feed reader, and be automatically notified of activity in that repository as soon as it happens. I find this capability much more convenient than the model of subscribing to a mailing list to which notifications are sent, as it requires no additional configuration on the part of whoever is serving the repository.
The web interface also lets remote users clone a repository, pull changes from it, and (when the server is configured to permit it) push changes back to it. Mercurial's HTTP tunneling protocol aggressively compresses data, so that it works efficiently even over low-bandwidth network connections.
The easiest way to get started with the web interface is to use your web browser to visit an existing repository, such as the master Mercurial repository at http://www.selenic.com/repo/hg.
The easiest and fastest way to get started in an informal environment is to use the hg serve command, which is best suited to short-term “lightweight” serving. See Section 6.4, “Informal sharing with hg serve” below for details of how to use this command.
For longer-lived repositories that you'd like to have permanently available, there are several public hosting services available. Some are free to open source projects, while others offer paid commercial hosting. An up-to-date list is available at http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MercurialHosting.
If you would prefer to host your own repositories, Mercurial has built-in support for several popular hosting technologies, most notably CGI (Common Gateway Interface), and WSGI (Web Services Gateway Interface). See Section 6.6, “Serving over HTTP using CGI” for details of CGI and WSGI configuration.
With a suitably flexible tool, making decisions about workflow is much more of a social engineering challenge than a technical one. Mercurial imposes few limitations on how you can structure the flow of work in a project, so it's up to you and your group to set up and live with a model that matches your own particular needs.
The most important aspect of any model that you must keep in mind is how well it matches the needs and capabilities of the people who will be using it. This might seem self-evident; even so, you still can't afford to forget it for a moment.
I once put together a workflow model that seemed to make perfect sense to me, but that caused a considerable amount of consternation and strife within my development team. In spite of my attempts to explain why we needed a complex set of branches, and how changes ought to flow between them, a few team members revolted. Even though they were smart people, they didn't want to pay attention to the constraints we were operating under, or face the consequences of those constraints in the details of the model that I was advocating.
Don't sweep foreseeable social or technical problems under the rug. Whatever scheme you put into effect, you should plan for mistakes and problem scenarios. Consider adding automated machinery to prevent, or quickly recover from, trouble that you can anticipate. As an example, if you intend to have a branch with not-for-release changes in it, you'd do well to think early about the possibility that someone might accidentally merge those changes into a release branch. You could avoid this particular problem by writing a hook that prevents changes from being merged from an inappropriate branch.
As one example, many projects have a loose-knit group of collaborators who rarely physically meet each other. Some groups like to overcome the isolation of working at a distance by organizing occasional “sprints”. In a sprint, a number of people get together in a single location (a company's conference room, a hotel meeting room, that kind of place) and spend several days more or less locked in there, hacking intensely on a handful of projects.
A sprint or a hacking session in a coffee shop are the perfect places to use the hg serve command, since hg serve does not require any fancy server infrastructure. You can get started with hg serve in moments, by reading Section 6.4, “Informal sharing with hg serve” below. Then simply tell the person next to you that you're running a server, send the URL to them in an instant message, and you immediately have a quick-turnaround way to work together. They can type your URL into their web browser and quickly review your changes; or they can pull a bugfix from you and verify it; or they can clone a branch containing a new feature and try it out.
The charm, and the problem, with doing things in an ad hoc fashion like this is that only people who know about your changes, and where they are, can see them. Such an informal approach simply doesn't scale beyond a handful people, because each individual needs to know about n different repositories to pull from.
For smaller projects migrating from a centralised revision control tool, perhaps the easiest way to get started is to have changes flow through a single shared central repository. This is also the most common “building block” for more ambitious workflow schemes.
Contributors start by cloning a copy of this repository. They can pull changes from it whenever they need to, and some (perhaps all) developers have permission to push a change back when they're ready for other people to see it.
Under this model, it can still often make sense for people to pull changes directly from each other, without going through the central repository. Consider a case in which I have a tentative bug fix, but I am worried that if I were to publish it to the central repository, it might subsequently break everyone else's trees as they pull it. To reduce the potential for damage, I can ask you to clone my repository into a temporary repository of your own and test it. This lets us put off publishing the potentially unsafe change until it has had a little testing.
If a team is hosting its own repository in this kind of scenario, people will usually use the ssh protocol to securely push changes to the central repository, as documented in Section 6.5, “Using the Secure Shell (ssh) protocol”. It's also usual to publish a read-only copy of the repository over HTTP, as in Section 6.6, “Serving over HTTP using CGI”. Publishing over HTTP satisfies the needs of people who don't have push access, and those who want to use web browsers to browse the repository's history.
A wonderful thing about public hosting services like Bitbucket is that not only do they handle the fiddly server configuration details, such as user accounts, authentication, and secure wire protocols, they provide additional infrastructure to make this model work well.
For instance, a well-engineered hosting service will let people clone their own copies of a repository with a single click. This lets people work in separate spaces and share their changes when they're ready.
Projects of any significant size naturally tend to make progress on several fronts simultaneously. In the case of software, it's common for a project to go through periodic official releases. A release might then go into “maintenance mode” for a while after its first publication; maintenance releases tend to contain only bug fixes, not new features. In parallel with these maintenance releases, one or more future releases may be under development. People normally use the word “branch” to refer to one of these many slightly different directions in which development is proceeding.
Mercurial is particularly well suited to managing a number of simultaneous, but not identical, branches. Each “development direction” can live in its own central repository, and you can merge changes from one to another as the need arises. Because repositories are independent of each other, unstable changes in a development branch will never affect a stable branch unless someone explicitly merges those changes into the stable branch.
hg init main
echo 'This is a boring feature.' > myfile
hg commit -A -m 'We have reached an important milestone!'adding myfile
hg tag v1.0
hg tipchangeset: 1:5e3db31b5bb0 tag: tip user: Bryan O'Sullivan <firstname.lastname@example.org> date: Mon Nov 01 23:57:47 2010 +0000 summary: Added tag v1.0 for changeset 0ad5af24d746
hg tagstip 1:5e3db31b5bb0 v1.0 0:0ad5af24d746
echo 'This is exciting and new!' >> myfile
hg commit -m 'Add a new feature'
cat myfileThis is a boring feature. This is exciting and new!
Using the tag that was recorded at the milestone, people who clone that repository at any time in the future can use hg update to get a copy of the working directory exactly as it was when that tagged revision was committed.
hg clone -U main main-old
hg update v1.01 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
cat myfileThis is a boring feature.
hg clone -rv1.0 main stableadding changesets adding manifests adding file changes added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files updating to branch default 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
hg clone stable stable-fixupdating to branch default 1 files updated, 0 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved
echo 'This is a fix to a boring feature.' > myfile
hg commit -m 'Fix a bug'
hg pushpushing to /tmp/branchingu8YNrR/stable searching for changes adding changesets adding manifests adding file changes added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files
Because Mercurial repositories are independent, and Mercurial doesn't move changes around automatically, the stable and main branches are isolated from each other. The changes that we made on the main branch don't “leak” to the stable branch, and vice versa.
We'll often want all of our bugfixes on the stable branch to show up on the main branch, too. Rather than rewrite a bugfix on the main branch, we can simply pull and merge changes from the stable to the main branch, and Mercurial will bring those bugfixes in for us.
hg pull ../stablepulling from ../stable searching for changes adding changesets adding manifests adding file changes added 1 changesets with 1 changes to 1 files (+1 heads) (run 'hg heads' to see heads, 'hg merge' to merge)
hg mergemerging myfile 0 files updated, 1 files merged, 0 files removed, 0 files unresolved (branch merge, don't forget to commit)
hg commit -m 'Bring in bugfix from stable branch'
cat myfileThis is a fix to a boring feature. This is exciting and new!
The main branch will still contain changes that are not on the stable branch, but it will also contain all of the bugfixes from the stable branch. The stable branch remains unaffected by these changes, since changes are only flowing from the stable to the main branch, and not the other way.
For larger projects, an effective way to manage change is to break up a team into smaller groups. Each group has a shared branch of its own, cloned from a single “master” branch used by the entire project. People working on an individual branch are typically quite isolated from developments on other branches.
This model resembles working with feature branches. The difference is that when a feature branch misses a train, someone on the feature team pulls and merges the changes that went out on that train release into the feature branch, and the team continues its work on top of that release so that their feature can make the next release.
The development of the Linux kernel has a shallow hierarchical structure, surrounded by a cloud of apparent chaos. Because most Linux developers use git, a distributed revision control tool with capabilities similar to Mercurial, it's useful to describe the way work flows in that environment; if you like the ideas, the approach translates well across tools.
At the center of the community sits Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux. He publishes a single source repository that is considered the “authoritative” current tree by the entire developer community. Anyone can clone Linus's tree, but he is very choosy about whose trees he pulls from.
Linus has a number of “trusted lieutenants”. As a general rule, he pulls whatever changes they publish, in most cases without even reviewing those changes. Some of those lieutenants are generally agreed to be “maintainers”, responsible for specific subsystems within the kernel. If a random kernel hacker wants to make a change to a subsystem that they want to end up in Linus's tree, they must find out who the subsystem's maintainer is, and ask that maintainer to take their change. If the maintainer reviews their changes and agrees to take them, they'll pass them along to Linus in due course.
Individual lieutenants have their own approaches to reviewing, accepting, and publishing changes; and for deciding when to feed them to Linus. In addition, there are several well known branches that people use for different purposes. For example, a few people maintain “stable” repositories of older versions of the kernel, to which they apply critical fixes as needed. Some maintainers publish multiple trees: one for experimental changes; one for changes that they are about to feed upstream; and so on. Others just publish a single tree.
This model has two notable features. The first is that it's “pull only”. You have to ask, convince, or beg another developer to take a change from you, because there are almost no trees to which more than one person can push, and there's no way to push changes into a tree that someone else controls.
The second is that it's based on reputation and acclaim. If you're an unknown, Linus will probably ignore changes from you without even responding. But a subsystem maintainer will probably review them, and will likely take them if they pass their criteria for suitability. The more “good” changes you contribute to a maintainer, the more likely they are to trust your judgment and accept your changes. If you're well-known and maintain a long-lived branch for something Linus hasn't yet accepted, people with similar interests may pull your changes regularly to keep up with your work.
Reputation and acclaim don't necessarily cross subsystem or “people” boundaries. If you're a respected but specialised storage hacker, and you try to fix a networking bug, that change will receive a level of scrutiny from a network maintainer comparable to a change from a complete stranger.
To people who come from more orderly project backgrounds, the comparatively chaotic Linux kernel development process often seems completely insane. It's subject to the whims of individuals; people make sweeping changes whenever they deem it appropriate; and the pace of development is astounding. And yet Linux is a highly successful, well-regarded piece of software.
A perpetual source of heat in the open source community is whether a development model in which people only ever pull changes from others is “better than” one in which multiple people can push changes to a shared repository.
Typically, the backers of the shared-push model use tools that actively enforce this approach. If you're using a centralised revision control tool such as Subversion, there's no way to make a choice over which model you'll use: the tool gives you shared-push, and if you want to do anything else, you'll have to roll your own approach on top (such as applying a patch by hand).
A good distributed revision control tool will support both models. You and your collaborators can then structure how you work together based on your own needs and preferences, not on what contortions your tools force you into.
Once you and your team set up some shared repositories and start propagating changes back and forth between local and shared repos, you begin to face a related, but slightly different challenge: that of managing the multiple directions in which your team may be moving at once. Even though this subject is intimately related to how your team collaborates, it's dense enough to merit treatment of its own, in Chapter 8, Managing releases and branchy development.
Run hg serve inside a
repository, and in under a second it will bring up a specialised
HTTP server; this will accept connections from any client, and
serve up data for that repository until you terminate it.
Anyone who knows the URL of the server you just started, and can
talk to your computer over the network, can then use a web
browser or Mercurial to read data from that repository. A URL
for a hg serve instance running
on a laptop is likely to look something like
If you're getting started with Mercurial, there's nothing to prevent you from using hg serve to serve up a repository on your own computer, then use commands like hg clone, hg incoming, and so on to talk to that server as if the repository was hosted remotely. This can help you to quickly get acquainted with using commands on network-hosted repositories.
Because it provides unauthenticated read access to all clients, you should only use hg serve in an environment where you either don't care, or have complete control over, who can access your network and pull data from your repository.
The hg serve command knows nothing about any firewall software you might have installed on your system or network. It cannot detect or control your firewall software. If other people are unable to talk to a running hg serve instance, the second thing you should do (after you make sure that they're using the correct URL) is check your firewall configuration.
By default, hg serve
listens for incoming connections on port 8000. If another
process is already listening on the port you want to use, you
can specify a different port to listen on using the
Normally, when hg serve
starts, it prints no output, which can be a bit unnerving. If
you'd like to confirm that it is indeed running correctly, and
find out what URL you should send to your collaborators, start
it with the
You can pull and push changes securely over a network
connection using the Secure Shell (
protocol. To use this successfully, you may have to do a little
bit of configuration on the client or server sides.
If you're not familiar with ssh, it's the name of both a command and a network protocol that let you securely communicate with another computer. To use it with Mercurial, you'll be setting up one or more user accounts on a server so that remote users can log in and execute commands.
There's plenty of scope for confusion with the path component of ssh URLs, as there is no standard way for tools to interpret it. Some programs behave differently than others when dealing with these paths. This isn't an ideal situation, but it's unlikely to change. Please read the following paragraphs carefully.
Mercurial treats the path to a repository on the server as
relative to the remote user's home directory. For example, if
foo on the server has a home directory
/home/foo, then an
ssh URL that contains a path component of
refers to the directory
Almost every Unix-like system comes with OpenSSH
preinstalled. If you're using such a system, run
which ssh to find out if the
ssh command is installed (it's usually in
/usr/bin). In the
unlikely event that it isn't present, take a look at your
system documentation to figure out how to install it.
|Key pairs are not mandatory|
When you generate a key pair, it's usually highly advisable to protect it with a passphrase. (The only time that you might not want to do this is when you're using the ssh protocol for automated tasks on a secure network.)
Simply generating a key pair isn't enough, however.
You'll need to add the public key to the set of authorised
keys for whatever user you're logging in remotely as. For
servers using OpenSSH (the vast majority), this will mean
adding the public key to a list in a file called
authorized_keys in their
On a Unix-like system, your public key will have a
.pub extension. If you're using
puttygen on Windows, you can save the
public key to a file of your choosing, or paste it from the
window it's displayed in straight into the
An authentication agent is a daemon that stores passphrases in memory (so it will forget passphrases if you log out and log back in again). An ssh client will notice if it's running, and query it for a passphrase. If there's no authentication agent running, or the agent doesn't store the necessary passphrase, you'll have to type your passphrase every time Mercurial tries to communicate with a server on your behalf (e.g. whenever you pull or push changes).
The downside of storing passphrases in an agent is that it's possible for a well-prepared attacker to recover the plain text of your passphrases, in some cases even if your system has been power-cycled. You should make your own judgment as to whether this is an acceptable risk. It certainly saves a lot of repeated typing.
On Windows, if you're using TortoiseHg, the pageant command acts as the agent. As with puttygen, you'll need to download pageant from the PuTTY web site and read its documentation. The pageant command adds an icon to your system tray that will let you manage stored passphrases.
Because ssh can be fiddly to set up if you're new to it, a variety of things can go wrong. Add Mercurial on top, and there's plenty more scope for head-scratching. Most of these potential problems occur on the server side, not the client side. The good news is that once you've gotten a configuration working, it will usually continue to work indefinitely.
Before you try using Mercurial to talk to an ssh server, it's best to make sure that you can use the normal ssh or putty command to talk to the server first. If you run into problems with using these commands directly, Mercurial surely won't work. Worse, it will obscure the underlying problem. Any time you want to debug ssh-related Mercurial problems, you should drop back to making sure that plain ssh client commands work first, before you worry about whether there's a problem with Mercurial.
The first thing to be sure of on the server side is that you can actually log in from another machine at all. If you can't use ssh or putty to log in, the error message you get may give you a few hints as to what's wrong. The most common problems are as follows.
In summary, if you're having trouble talking to the server's ssh daemon, first make sure that one is running at all. On many systems it will be installed, but disabled, by default. Once you're done with this step, you should then check that the server's firewall is configured to allow incoming connections on the port the ssh daemon is listening on (usually 22). Don't worry about more exotic possibilities for misconfiguration until you've checked these two first.
If you're using an authentication agent on the client side to store passphrases for your keys, you ought to be able to log into the server without being prompted for a passphrase or a password. If you're prompted for a passphrase, there are a few possible culprits.
Either the user's home directory or their
directory might have excessively liberal permissions. As
a result, the ssh daemon will not trust or read their
For example, a group-writable home or
directory will often cause this symptom.
ssh myserver date
If, on your server, you have login scripts that print
banners or other junk even when running non-interactive
commands like this, you should fix them before you continue,
so that they only print output if they're run interactively.
Otherwise these banners will at least clutter up Mercurial's
output. Worse, they could potentially cause problems with
running Mercurial commands remotely. Mercurial tries to
detect and ignore banners in non-interactive
ssh sessions, but it is not foolproof. (If
you're editing your login scripts on your server, the usual
way to see if a login script is running in an interactive
shell is to check the return code from the command
ssh myserver hg version
If you see an error message instead of normal hg version output, this is usually
because you haven't installed Mercurial to
/usr/bin. Don't worry if this
is the case; you don't need to do that. But you should check
for a few possible problems.
variable is only being set to point to the location of the
hg executable if the login session is
interactive. This can happen if you're setting the path
in the wrong shell login script. See your shell's
documentation for details.
If you can run hg version
over an ssh connection, well done! You've got the server and
client sorted out. You should now be able to use Mercurial to
access repositories hosted by that username on that server.
If you run into problems with Mercurial and ssh at this point,
try using the
option to get a clearer picture of what's going on.
Over any network other than a fast LAN (even a wireless network), using compression is likely to significantly speed up Mercurial's network operations. For example, over a WAN, someone measured compression as reducing the amount of time required to clone a particularly large repository from 51 minutes to 17 minutes.
Both ssh and plink
-C option which
turns on compression. You can easily edit your
~/.hgrc to enable compression for
all of Mercurial's uses of the ssh protocol. Here is how to
do so for regular ssh on Unix-like systems,
[ui] ssh = ssh -C
Host hg Compression yes HostName hg.example.com
This defines a hostname alias,
hg. When you use that hostname on the
ssh command line or in a Mercurial
ssh-protocol URL, it will cause
ssh to connect to
hg.example.com and use compression. This
gives you both a shorter name to type and compression, each of
which is a good thing in its own right.
We'll begin with the simplest of examples, and work our way towards a more complex configuration. Even for the most basic case, you're almost certainly going to need to read and modify your web server's configuration.
|High pain tolerance required|
Configuring a web server is a complex, fiddly, and highly system-dependent activity. I can't possibly give you instructions that will cover anything like all of the cases you will encounter. Please use your discretion and judgment in following the sections below. Be prepared to make plenty of mistakes, and to spend a lot of time reading your server's error logs.
If you don't have a strong stomach for tweaking configurations over and over, or a compelling need to host your own services, you might want to try one of the public hosting services that I mentioned earlier.
If you don't have a web server installed, and don't have
substantial experience configuring Apache, you should consider
lighttpd web server instead of
Apache. Apache has a well-deserved reputation for baroque and
confusing configuration. While
less capable in some ways than Apache, most of these
capabilities are not relevant to serving Mercurial
lighttpd is undeniably
much easier to get started with than
On Unix-like systems, it's common for users to have a
subdirectory named something like
public_html in their home
directory, from which they can serve up web pages. A file
foo in this directory will be
accessible at a URL of the form
To get started, find the
hgweb.cgi script that should be
present in your Mercurial installation. If you can't quickly
find a local copy on your system, simply download one from the
master Mercurial repository at http://www.selenic.com/repo/hg/raw-file/tip/hgweb.cgi.
cp .../hgweb.cgi ~/public_html chmod 755 ~/public_html/hgweb.cgi
755 argument to
chmod is a little more general than just
making the script executable: it ensures that the script is
executable by anyone, and that “group” and
“other” write permissions are
not set. If you were to leave those
write permissions enabled, Apache's
subsystem would likely refuse to execute the script. In fact,
suexec also insists that the
directory in which the script resides
must not be writable by others.
chmod 755 ~/public_html
Once you've copied the CGI script into place,
go into a web browser, and try to open the URL
but brace yourself for instant failure.
There's a high probability that trying to visit this URL
will fail, and there are many possible reasons for this. In
fact, you're likely to stumble over almost every one of the
possible errors below, so please read carefully. The
following are all of the problems I ran into on a system
running Fedora 7, with a fresh installation of Apache, and a
user account that I created specially to perform this
Your web server may have per-user directories disabled.
If you're using Apache, search your config file for a
UserDir directive. If there's none
present, per-user directories will be disabled. If one
exists, but its value is
per-user directories will be disabled. Otherwise, the
UserDir gives the name of
the subdirectory that Apache will look in under your home
directory, for example
Your file access permissions may be too restrictive.
The web server must be able to traverse your home directory
and directories under your
public_html directory, and
read files under the latter too. Here's a quick recipe to
help you to make your permissions more appropriate.
chmod 755 ~ find ~/public_html -type d -print0 | xargs -0r chmod 755 find ~/public_html -type f -print0 | xargs -0r chmod 644
The other possibility with permissions is that you might
get a completely empty window when you try to load the
script. In this case, it's likely that your access
permissions are too permissive. Apache's
suexec subsystem won't execute a script
that's group- or world-writable, for example.
<Directory /home/*/public_html> AllowOverride FileInfo AuthConfig Limit Options MultiViews Indexes SymLinksIfOwnerMatch IncludesNoExec <Limit GET POST OPTIONS> Order allow,deny Allow from all </Limit> <LimitExcept GET POST OPTIONS> Order deny,allow Deny from all </LimitExcept> </Directory>
If you find a similar-looking
Directory group in your Apache
configuration, the directive to look at inside it is
to the end of this list if it's missing, and restart the web
AddHandler cgi-script .cgi
The next possibility is that you might be served with a
colourful Python backtrace claiming that it can't import a
mercurial-related module. This is
actually progress! The server is now capable of executing
your CGI script. This error is only likely to occur if
you're running a private installation of Mercurial, instead
of a system-wide version. Remember that the web server runs
the CGI program without any of the environment variables
that you take for granted in an interactive session. If
this error happens to you, edit your copy of
hgweb.cgi and follow the
directions inside it to correctly set your
PYTHONPATH environment variable.
Finally, you are certain to be
served with another colourful Python backtrace: this one
will complain that it can't find
and replace the
with the complete path to the repository you want to serve
To be exhaustive in my experiments, I tried configuring
the increasingly popular
server to serve the same repository as I described with
Apache above. I had already overcome all of the problems I
outlined with Apache, many of which are not server-specific.
As a result, I was fairly sure that my file and directory
permissions were good, and that my
hgweb.cgi script was properly
Once I had Apache running, getting
lighttpd to serve the repository was a
snap (in other words, even if you're trying to use
lighttpd, you should read the Apache
section). I first had to edit the
mod_access section of its config file to
mod_userdir, both of which were disabled
by default on my system. I then added a few lines to the
end of the config file, to configure these modules.
userdir.path = "public_html" cgi.assign = (".cgi" => "" )
With this done,
immediately for me. If I had configured
lighttpd before Apache, I'd almost
certainly have run into many of the same system-level
configuration problems as I did with Apache. However, I
lighttpd to be noticeably easier to
configure than Apache, even though I've used Apache for over
a decade, and this was my first exposure to
only lets you publish a single repository, which is an
annoying restriction. If you want to publish more than one
without wracking yourself with multiple copies of the same
script, each with different names, a better choice is to use
The procedure to configure
hgwebdir.cgi is only a little more
involved than for
hgweb.cgi. First, you must obtain
a copy of the script. If you don't have one handy, you can
download a copy from the master Mercurial repository at http://www.selenic.com/repo/hg/raw-file/tip/hgwebdir.cgi.
cp .../hgwebdir.cgi ~/public_html chmod 755 ~/public_html ~/public_html/hgwebdir.cgi
With basic configuration out of the way, try to
in your browser. It should
display an empty list of repositories. If you get a blank
window or error message, try walking through the list of
potential problems in Section 188.8.131.52, “What could possibly go
script relies on an external configuration file. By default,
it searches for a file named
hgweb.config in the same directory
as itself. You'll need to create this file, and make it
world-readable. The format of the file is similar to a
Windows “ini” file, as understood by Python's
[collections] /my/root = /my/root
Mercurial interprets this by looking at the directory name
on the right hand side of the
=” sign; finding repositories
in that directory hierarchy; and using the text on the
left to strip off matching text from the
names it will actually list in the web interface. The
remaining component of a path after this stripping has
occurred is called a “virtual path”.
Given the example above, if we have a
repository whose local path is
/my/root/this/repo, the CGI
script will strip the leading
/my/root from the name, and
publish the repository with a virtual path of
this/repo. If the base URL for
our CGI script is
complete URL for that repository will be
If we replace
/my/root on the left hand side
of this example with
hgwebdir.cgi will only strip off
/my from the repository
name, and will give us a virtual path of
root/this/repo instead of
collections mechanism makes it easy
to publish many repositories in a “fire and
forget” manner. You only need to set up the CGI
script and configuration file one time. Afterwards, you can
publish or unpublish a repository at any time by simply moving
it into, or out of, the directory hierarchy in which you've
[paths] repo1 = /my/path/to/some/repo repo2 = /some/path/to/another
In this case, the virtual path (the component that will appear in a URL) is on the left hand side of each definition, while the path to the repository is on the right. Notice that there does not need to be any relationship between the virtual path you choose and the location of a repository in your filesystem.
Mercurial's web interface lets users download an archive of any revision. This archive will contain a snapshot of the working directory as of that revision, but it will not contain a copy of the repository data.
which (if any) archive download mechanisms Mercurial
supports. If you enable this feature, users of the web
interface will be able to download an archive of whatever
revision of a repository they are viewing. To enable the
archive feature, this item must take the form of a
sequence of words drawn from the list below.
[web] allow_archive = bz2 gz zip
Boolean. Determines whether the web interface allows
remote users to hg pull
and hg clone this
repository over HTTP. If set to
false, only the
“human-oriented” portion of the web interface
String. A free-form (but preferably brief) string
identifying the person or group in charge of the
repository. This often contains the name and email
address of a person or mailing list. It often makes sense
to place this entry in a repository's own
.hg/hgrc file, but it can make
sense to use in a global
~/.hgrc if every repository
has a single maintainer.
also specify a custom template of your own; see
Chapter 11, Customizing the output of Mercurial for details. Here, you can
see how to enable the
[web] style = gitweb
Path. The name of a file into which to write an access
log. By default, the hg
serve command writes this information to
standard output, not to a file. Log entries are written
in the standard “combined” file format used
by almost all web servers.
It is important to remember that a web server like
lighttpd will run under a user
ID that is different to yours. CGI scripts run by your
server, such as
hgweb.cgi, will usually also run
under that user ID.
If you add
web items to
your own personal
~/.hgrc file, CGI scripts won't read that
~/.hgrc file. Those
settings will thus only affect the behavior of the hg serve command when you run it.
To cause CGI scripts to see your settings, either create a
~/.hgrc file in the
home directory of the user ID that runs your web server, or
add those settings to a system-wide
On Unix-like systems shared by multiple users (such as a server to which people publish changes), it often makes sense to set up some global default behaviors, such as what theme to use in web interfaces.
If a file named
exists, Mercurial will read it at startup time and apply any
configuration settings it finds in that file. It will also look
for files ending in a
.rc extension in a
apply any configuration settings it finds in each of those
One situation in which a global
can be useful is if users are pulling changes owned by other
users. By default, Mercurial will not trust most of the
configuration items in a
inside a repository that is owned by a different user. If we
clone or pull changes from such a repository, Mercurial will
print a warning stating that it does not trust their
If everyone in a particular Unix group is on the same team
and should trust each other's
configuration settings, or we want to trust particular users,
we can override Mercurial's skeptical defaults by creating a
hgrc file such as the
# Save this as e.g. /etc/mercurial/hgrc.d/trust.rc [trusted] # Trust all entries in any hgrc file owned by the "editors" or # "www-data" groups. groups = editors, www-data # Trust entries in hgrc files owned by the following users. users = apache, bobo