Re: hg repo corruption: ".hgsubstate is corrupt in revision ..."

[Andrew Janke]

On 3/28/19 3:15 AM, Mike Miller wrote:

> I don't know how well versed you are in Hg, but one big difference with
> Git is that branches are permanent, like SVN. Use bookmarks instead, the
> effect is roughly similar to Git topic branches.

Did not know that. I'll read up on Hg bookmarks.

> So I tried bisecting, first once, then twice, and I finally got a
> successful push by pushing the first ¼ of the revisions on the default
> branch
>
>      hg push -r d5d6a670f137 new

Cool! What was the code you used to do the bisecting? I'm working on a 
similar thing, and my solution in progress is rather ungainly. 
https://github.com/apjanke/rebuild-octave-repo

> I kept pushing ¼ at a time and got the whole history pushed in 4 batches
> of ~6500 changesets each, plus one more for stray side branches
>
>      hg push --new-branch -r 2e4252228f73 new
>      hg push --new-branch -r 6cfbf412a2c3 new
>      hg push --new-branch -r @ new
>      hg push --force -r "public()" new
>      hg push -B @ new
>
> If you try that, maybe you'll have better luck pushing the whole history
> in batches. Maybe Bitbucket can't handle the size of our repository all
> at once? Maybe it has a post-receive hook that is timing out on such a
> huge number of changesets? I really don't know.

Ha! It worked! Thank you!

> I have to say after a few years of using Hg on Bitbucket off and on,
> it's really not pleasant. I've found quite a few rough edges. Enough to
> make me not want to use it for collaboration again.

Are there any better options for Hg? I"m not up for hosting my own 
publicly-visible repo.

Thanks for figuring out how to fix this for me! This will make my Octave 
work easier.

Cheers,
Andrew