diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/core-tutorial.txt | 5 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/git-get-tar-commit-id.txt | 6 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/git-remote.txt | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/user-manual.txt | 81 |
4 files changed, 81 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/core-tutorial.txt b/Documentation/core-tutorial.txt index c126038c1f..c3f0be535d 100644 --- a/Documentation/core-tutorial.txt +++ b/Documentation/core-tutorial.txt @@ -1082,11 +1082,6 @@ server like git Native transport does. Any stock HTTP server that does not even support directory index would suffice. But you must prepare your repository with `git-update-server-info` to help dumb transport downloaders. -+ -There are (confusingly enough) `git-ssh-fetch` and `git-ssh-upload` -programs, which are 'commit walkers'; they outlived their -usefulness when git Native and SSH transports were introduced, -and not used by `git pull` or `git push` scripts. Once you fetch from the remote repository, you `merge` that with your current branch. diff --git a/Documentation/git-get-tar-commit-id.txt b/Documentation/git-get-tar-commit-id.txt index 9b5f86fc30..60d1c52f44 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-get-tar-commit-id.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-get-tar-commit-id.txt @@ -3,7 +3,7 @@ git-get-tar-commit-id(1) NAME ---- -git-get-tar-commit-id - Extract commit ID from an archive created using git-tar-tree +git-get-tar-commit-id - Extract commit ID from an archive created using git-archive SYNOPSIS @@ -14,12 +14,12 @@ SYNOPSIS DESCRIPTION ----------- Acts as a filter, extracting the commit ID stored in archives created by -git-tar-tree. It reads only the first 1024 bytes of input, thus its +gitlink:git-archive[1]. It reads only the first 1024 bytes of input, thus its runtime is not influenced by the size of <tarfile> very much. If no commit ID is found, git-get-tar-commit-id quietly exists with a return code of 1. This can happen if <tarfile> had not been created -using git-tar-tree or if the first parameter of git-tar-tree had been +using git-archive or if the first parameter of git-archive had been a tree ID instead of a commit ID or tag. diff --git a/Documentation/git-remote.txt b/Documentation/git-remote.txt index c386dd0168..886bc03c4a 100644 --- a/Documentation/git-remote.txt +++ b/Documentation/git-remote.txt @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ $ git remote origin $ git branch -r origin/master -$ git remote add linux-nfs git://linux-nfs.org/pub/nfs-2.6.git +$ git remote add linux-nfs git://linux-nfs.org/pub/linux/nfs-2.6.git $ git remote linux-nfs origin diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt index c7fdf25e27..c027353337 100644 --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt @@ -658,16 +658,23 @@ gitlink:git-diff[1]: $ git diff master..test ------------------------------------------------- -Sometimes what you want instead is a set of patches: +That will produce the diff between the tips of the two branches. If +you'd prefer to find the diff from their common ancestor to test, you +can use three dots instead of two: + +------------------------------------------------- +$ git diff master...test +------------------------------------------------- + +Sometimes what you want instead is a set of patches; for this you can +use gitlink:git-format-patch[1]: ------------------------------------------------- $ git format-patch master..test ------------------------------------------------- will generate a file with a patch for each commit reachable from test -but not from master. Note that if master also has commits which are -not reachable from test, then the combined result of these patches -will not be the same as the diff produced by the git-diff example. +but not from master. [[viewing-old-file-versions]] Viewing old file versions @@ -2554,6 +2561,72 @@ branches into their own work. For true distributed development that supports proper merging, published branches should never be rewritten. +[[bisect-merges]] +Why bisecting merge commits can be harder than bisecting linear history +----------------------------------------------------------------------- + +The gitlink:git-bisect[1] command correctly handles history that +includes merge commits. However, when the commit that it finds is a +merge commit, the user may need to work harder than usual to figure out +why that commit introduced a problem. + +Imagine this history: + +................................................ + ---Z---o---X---...---o---A---C---D + \ / + o---o---Y---...---o---B +................................................ + +Suppose that on the upper line of development, the meaning of one +of the functions that exists at Z is changed at commit X. The +commits from Z leading to A change both the function's +implementation and all calling sites that exist at Z, as well +as new calling sites they add, to be consistent. There is no +bug at A. + +Suppose that in the meantime on the lower line of development somebody +adds a new calling site for that function at commit Y. The +commits from Z leading to B all assume the old semantics of that +function and the callers and the callee are consistent with each +other. There is no bug at B, either. + +Suppose further that the two development lines merge cleanly at C, +so no conflict resolution is required. + +Nevertheless, the code at C is broken, because the callers added +on the lower line of development have not been converted to the new +semantics introduced on the upper line of development. So if all +you know is that D is bad, that Z is good, and that +gitlink:git-bisect[1] identifies C as the culprit, how will you +figure out that the problem is due to this change in semantics? + +When the result of a git-bisect is a non-merge commit, you should +normally be able to discover the problem by examining just that commit. +Developers can make this easy by breaking their changes into small +self-contained commits. That won't help in the case above, however, +because the problem isn't obvious from examination of any single +commit; instead, a global view of the development is required. To +make matters worse, the change in semantics in the problematic +function may be just one small part of the changes in the upper +line of development. + +On the other hand, if instead of merging at C you had rebased the +history between Z to B on top of A, you would have gotten this +linear history: + +................................................................ + ---Z---o---X--...---o---A---o---o---Y*--...---o---B*--D* +................................................................ + +Bisecting between Z and D* would hit a single culprit commit Y*, +and understanding why Y* was broken would probably be easier. + +Partly for this reason, many experienced git users, even when +working on an otherwise merge-heavy project, keep the history +linear by rebasing against the latest upstream version before +publishing. + [[advanced-branch-management]] Advanced branch management ========================== |