问题
I was considering using AppHarbor to host a lightweight website and was investigating their Mercurial integration.
Currently I use Kiln for my remote repositories, but currently AppHarbor only supports BitBucket integration.
Is it possible to have 2 remote repositories for a single local repository? So when I push commits from my local, they both get the push?
I don't ever want to pull from BitBucket, only push so that it can then be grabbed by AppHarbor and deployed.
回答1:
You can set multiple remote repository aliases in the [paths] section of the repository configuration file. This file is in .hg/hgrc, and you would add paths like this
[paths]
default = http://kilnhg.com/repo
bitbucket = http://bitbucket.org/repo
Then you would run hg push bitbucket to push to bitbucket and hg push to push to kiln, which is also the default here. The alias default is the one that's used when you don't specify anything else. This way push and pull with no arguments would use your preferred remote host, kiln.
Sadly you can't do a hg push * type command to push to all remote hosts at once, you have to specify each push destination one by one.
回答2:
I'm not sure if you can edit the hgrc file on Bitbucket/Kiln. If you can, you may be able to make this automatic. If not, you could push to another local copy, which then pushes to both Bitbucket and Kiln using Hooks. See this answer by Ton (included below for convenience):
In your central server you create an changegroup hook.
So your central server would have the following hgrc:
[paths] server2=http://server2 server3=http://server3 [hooks] changegroup.server2 = hg push -f server2 changegroup.server3 = hg push -f server3You can have multiple hooks for the same event, so that shouldn't be an issue. The advantage of the changegroup hook over the changeset hook is that it is run far less often.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6223039/push-to-multiple-remote-repositories-from-a-single-local-repo-in-mercurial