diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/core-tutorial.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/core-tutorial.txt | 1691 |
1 files changed, 1691 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/core-tutorial.txt b/Documentation/core-tutorial.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..9c28bea62e --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/core-tutorial.txt @@ -0,0 +1,1691 @@ +A git core tutorial for developers +================================== + +Introduction +------------ + +This is trying to be a short tutorial on setting up and using a git +repository, mainly because being hands-on and using explicit examples is +often the best way of explaining what is going on. + +In normal life, most people wouldn't use the "core" git programs +directly, but rather script around them to make them more palatable. +Understanding the core git stuff may help some people get those scripts +done, though, and it may also be instructive in helping people +understand what it is that the higher-level helper scripts are actually +doing. + +The core git is often called "plumbing", with the prettier user +interfaces on top of it called "porcelain". You may not want to use the +plumbing directly very often, but it can be good to know what the +plumbing does for when the porcelain isn't flushing. + +The material presented here often goes deep describing how things +work internally. If you are mostly interested in using git as a +SCM, you can skip them during your first pass. + +[NOTE] +And those "too deep" descriptions are often marked as Note. + +[NOTE] +If you are already familiar with another version control system, +like CVS, you may want to take a look at +link:everyday.html[Everyday GIT in 20 commands or so] first +before reading this. + + +Creating a git repository +------------------------- + +Creating a new git repository couldn't be easier: all git repositories start +out empty, and the only thing you need to do is find yourself a +subdirectory that you want to use as a working tree - either an empty +one for a totally new project, or an existing working tree that you want +to import into git. + +For our first example, we're going to start a totally new repository from +scratch, with no pre-existing files, and we'll call it `git-tutorial`. +To start up, create a subdirectory for it, change into that +subdirectory, and initialize the git infrastructure with `git-init`: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ mkdir git-tutorial +$ cd git-tutorial +$ git-init +------------------------------------------------ + +to which git will reply + +---------------- +Initialized empty Git repository in .git/ +---------------- + +which is just git's way of saying that you haven't been doing anything +strange, and that it will have created a local `.git` directory setup for +your new project. You will now have a `.git` directory, and you can +inspect that with `ls`. For your new empty project, it should show you +three entries, among other things: + + - a file called `HEAD`, that has `ref: refs/heads/master` in it. + This is similar to a symbolic link and points at + `refs/heads/master` relative to the `HEAD` file. ++ +Don't worry about the fact that the file that the `HEAD` link points to +doesn't even exist yet -- you haven't created the commit that will +start your `HEAD` development branch yet. + + - a subdirectory called `objects`, which will contain all the + objects of your project. You should never have any real reason to + look at the objects directly, but you might want to know that these + objects are what contains all the real 'data' in your repository. + + - a subdirectory called `refs`, which contains references to objects. + +In particular, the `refs` subdirectory will contain two other +subdirectories, named `heads` and `tags` respectively. They do +exactly what their names imply: they contain references to any number +of different 'heads' of development (aka 'branches'), and to any +'tags' that you have created to name specific versions in your +repository. + +One note: the special `master` head is the default branch, which is +why the `.git/HEAD` file was created points to it even if it +doesn't yet exist. Basically, the `HEAD` link is supposed to always +point to the branch you are working on right now, and you always +start out expecting to work on the `master` branch. + +However, this is only a convention, and you can name your branches +anything you want, and don't have to ever even 'have' a `master` +branch. A number of the git tools will assume that `.git/HEAD` is +valid, though. + +[NOTE] +An 'object' is identified by its 160-bit SHA1 hash, aka 'object name', +and a reference to an object is always the 40-byte hex +representation of that SHA1 name. The files in the `refs` +subdirectory are expected to contain these hex references +(usually with a final `\'\n\'` at the end), and you should thus +expect to see a number of 41-byte files containing these +references in these `refs` subdirectories when you actually start +populating your tree. + +[NOTE] +An advanced user may want to take a look at the +link:repository-layout.html[repository layout] document +after finishing this tutorial. + +You have now created your first git repository. Of course, since it's +empty, that's not very useful, so let's start populating it with data. + + +Populating a git repository +--------------------------- + +We'll keep this simple and stupid, so we'll start off with populating a +few trivial files just to get a feel for it. + +Start off with just creating any random files that you want to maintain +in your git repository. We'll start off with a few bad examples, just to +get a feel for how this works: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ echo "Hello World" >hello +$ echo "Silly example" >example +------------------------------------------------ + +you have now created two files in your working tree (aka 'working directory'), +but to actually check in your hard work, you will have to go through two steps: + + - fill in the 'index' file (aka 'cache') with the information about your + working tree state. + + - commit that index file as an object. + +The first step is trivial: when you want to tell git about any changes +to your working tree, you use the `git-update-index` program. That +program normally just takes a list of filenames you want to update, but +to avoid trivial mistakes, it refuses to add new entries to the index +(or remove existing ones) unless you explicitly tell it that you're +adding a new entry with the `\--add` flag (or removing an entry with the +`\--remove`) flag. + +So to populate the index with the two files you just created, you can do + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git-update-index --add hello example +------------------------------------------------ + +and you have now told git to track those two files. + +In fact, as you did that, if you now look into your object directory, +you'll notice that git will have added two new objects to the object +database. If you did exactly the steps above, you should now be able to do + + +---------------- +$ ls .git/objects/??/* +---------------- + +and see two files: + +---------------- +.git/objects/55/7db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238 +.git/objects/f2/4c74a2e500f5ee1332c86b94199f52b1d1d962 +---------------- + +which correspond with the objects with names of `557db...` and +`f24c7...` respectively. + +If you want to, you can use `git-cat-file` to look at those objects, but +you'll have to use the object name, not the filename of the object: + +---------------- +$ git-cat-file -t 557db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238 +---------------- + +where the `-t` tells `git-cat-file` to tell you what the "type" of the +object is. git will tell you that you have a "blob" object (i.e., just a +regular file), and you can see the contents with + +---------------- +$ git-cat-file "blob" 557db03 +---------------- + +which will print out "Hello World". The object `557db03` is nothing +more than the contents of your file `hello`. + +[NOTE] +Don't confuse that object with the file `hello` itself. The +object is literally just those specific *contents* of the file, and +however much you later change the contents in file `hello`, the object +we just looked at will never change. Objects are immutable. + +[NOTE] +The second example demonstrates that you can +abbreviate the object name to only the first several +hexadecimal digits in most places. + +Anyway, as we mentioned previously, you normally never actually take a +look at the objects themselves, and typing long 40-character hex +names is not something you'd normally want to do. The above digression +was just to show that `git-update-index` did something magical, and +actually saved away the contents of your files into the git object +database. + +Updating the index did something else too: it created a `.git/index` +file. This is the index that describes your current working tree, and +something you should be very aware of. Again, you normally never worry +about the index file itself, but you should be aware of the fact that +you have not actually really "checked in" your files into git so far, +you've only *told* git about them. + +However, since git knows about them, you can now start using some of the +most basic git commands to manipulate the files or look at their status. + +In particular, let's not even check in the two files into git yet, we'll +start off by adding another line to `hello` first: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ echo "It's a new day for git" >>hello +------------------------------------------------ + +and you can now, since you told git about the previous state of `hello`, ask +git what has changed in the tree compared to your old index, using the +`git-diff-files` command: + +------------ +$ git-diff-files +------------ + +Oops. That wasn't very readable. It just spit out its own internal +version of a `diff`, but that internal version really just tells you +that it has noticed that "hello" has been modified, and that the old object +contents it had have been replaced with something else. + +To make it readable, we can tell git-diff-files to output the +differences as a patch, using the `-p` flag: + +------------ +$ git-diff-files -p +diff --git a/hello b/hello +index 557db03..263414f 100644 +--- a/hello ++++ b/hello +@@ -1 +1,2 @@ + Hello World ++It's a new day for git +---- + +i.e. the diff of the change we caused by adding another line to `hello`. + +In other words, `git-diff-files` always shows us the difference between +what is recorded in the index, and what is currently in the working +tree. That's very useful. + +A common shorthand for `git-diff-files -p` is to just write `git +diff`, which will do the same thing. + +------------ +$ git diff +diff --git a/hello b/hello +index 557db03..263414f 100644 +--- a/hello ++++ b/hello +@@ -1 +1,2 @@ + Hello World ++It's a new day for git +------------ + + +Committing git state +-------------------- + +Now, we want to go to the next stage in git, which is to take the files +that git knows about in the index, and commit them as a real tree. We do +that in two phases: creating a 'tree' object, and committing that 'tree' +object as a 'commit' object together with an explanation of what the +tree was all about, along with information of how we came to that state. + +Creating a tree object is trivial, and is done with `git-write-tree`. +There are no options or other input: git-write-tree will take the +current index state, and write an object that describes that whole +index. In other words, we're now tying together all the different +filenames with their contents (and their permissions), and we're +creating the equivalent of a git "directory" object: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git-write-tree +------------------------------------------------ + +and this will just output the name of the resulting tree, in this case +(if you have done exactly as I've described) it should be + +---------------- +8988da15d077d4829fc51d8544c097def6644dbb +---------------- + +which is another incomprehensible object name. Again, if you want to, +you can use `git-cat-file -t 8988d\...` to see that this time the object +is not a "blob" object, but a "tree" object (you can also use +`git-cat-file` to actually output the raw object contents, but you'll see +mainly a binary mess, so that's less interesting). + +However -- normally you'd never use `git-write-tree` on its own, because +normally you always commit a tree into a commit object using the +`git-commit-tree` command. In fact, it's easier to not actually use +`git-write-tree` on its own at all, but to just pass its result in as an +argument to `git-commit-tree`. + +`git-commit-tree` normally takes several arguments -- it wants to know +what the 'parent' of a commit was, but since this is the first commit +ever in this new repository, and it has no parents, we only need to pass in +the object name of the tree. However, `git-commit-tree` +also wants to get a commit message +on its standard input, and it will write out the resulting object name for the +commit to its standard output. + +And this is where we create the `.git/refs/heads/master` file +which is pointed at by `HEAD`. This file is supposed to contain +the reference to the top-of-tree of the master branch, and since +that's exactly what `git-commit-tree` spits out, we can do this +all with a sequence of simple shell commands: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ tree=$(git-write-tree) +$ commit=$(echo 'Initial commit' | git-commit-tree $tree) +$ git-update-ref HEAD $commit +------------------------------------------------ + +In this case this creates a totally new commit that is not related to +anything else. Normally you do this only *once* for a project ever, and +all later commits will be parented on top of an earlier commit. + +Again, normally you'd never actually do this by hand. There is a +helpful script called `git commit` that will do all of this for you. So +you could have just written `git commit` +instead, and it would have done the above magic scripting for you. + + +Making a change +--------------- + +Remember how we did the `git-update-index` on file `hello` and then we +changed `hello` afterward, and could compare the new state of `hello` with the +state we saved in the index file? + +Further, remember how I said that `git-write-tree` writes the contents +of the *index* file to the tree, and thus what we just committed was in +fact the *original* contents of the file `hello`, not the new ones. We did +that on purpose, to show the difference between the index state, and the +state in the working tree, and how they don't have to match, even +when we commit things. + +As before, if we do `git-diff-files -p` in our git-tutorial project, +we'll still see the same difference we saw last time: the index file +hasn't changed by the act of committing anything. However, now that we +have committed something, we can also learn to use a new command: +`git-diff-index`. + +Unlike `git-diff-files`, which showed the difference between the index +file and the working tree, `git-diff-index` shows the differences +between a committed *tree* and either the index file or the working +tree. In other words, `git-diff-index` wants a tree to be diffed +against, and before we did the commit, we couldn't do that, because we +didn't have anything to diff against. + +But now we can do + +---------------- +$ git-diff-index -p HEAD +---------------- + +(where `-p` has the same meaning as it did in `git-diff-files`), and it +will show us the same difference, but for a totally different reason. +Now we're comparing the working tree not against the index file, +but against the tree we just wrote. It just so happens that those two +are obviously the same, so we get the same result. + +Again, because this is a common operation, you can also just shorthand +it with + +---------------- +$ git diff HEAD +---------------- + +which ends up doing the above for you. + +In other words, `git-diff-index` normally compares a tree against the +working tree, but when given the `\--cached` flag, it is told to +instead compare against just the index cache contents, and ignore the +current working tree state entirely. Since we just wrote the index +file to HEAD, doing `git-diff-index \--cached -p HEAD` should thus return +an empty set of differences, and that's exactly what it does. + +[NOTE] +================ +`git-diff-index` really always uses the index for its +comparisons, and saying that it compares a tree against the working +tree is thus not strictly accurate. In particular, the list of +files to compare (the "meta-data") *always* comes from the index file, +regardless of whether the `\--cached` flag is used or not. The `\--cached` +flag really only determines whether the file *contents* to be compared +come from the working tree or not. + +This is not hard to understand, as soon as you realize that git simply +never knows (or cares) about files that it is not told about +explicitly. git will never go *looking* for files to compare, it +expects you to tell it what the files are, and that's what the index +is there for. +================ + +However, our next step is to commit the *change* we did, and again, to +understand what's going on, keep in mind the difference between "working +tree contents", "index file" and "committed tree". We have changes +in the working tree that we want to commit, and we always have to +work through the index file, so the first thing we need to do is to +update the index cache: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git-update-index hello +------------------------------------------------ + +(note how we didn't need the `\--add` flag this time, since git knew +about the file already). + +Note what happens to the different `git-diff-\*` versions here. After +we've updated `hello` in the index, `git-diff-files -p` now shows no +differences, but `git-diff-index -p HEAD` still *does* show that the +current state is different from the state we committed. In fact, now +`git-diff-index` shows the same difference whether we use the `--cached` +flag or not, since now the index is coherent with the working tree. + +Now, since we've updated `hello` in the index, we can commit the new +version. We could do it by writing the tree by hand again, and +committing the tree (this time we'd have to use the `-p HEAD` flag to +tell commit that the HEAD was the *parent* of the new commit, and that +this wasn't an initial commit any more), but you've done that once +already, so let's just use the helpful script this time: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git commit +------------------------------------------------ + +which starts an editor for you to write the commit message and tells you +a bit about what you have done. + +Write whatever message you want, and all the lines that start with '#' +will be pruned out, and the rest will be used as the commit message for +the change. If you decide you don't want to commit anything after all at +this point (you can continue to edit things and update the index), you +can just leave an empty message. Otherwise `git commit` will commit +the change for you. + +You've now made your first real git commit. And if you're interested in +looking at what `git commit` really does, feel free to investigate: +it's a few very simple shell scripts to generate the helpful (?) commit +message headers, and a few one-liners that actually do the +commit itself (`git-commit`). + + +Inspecting Changes +------------------ + +While creating changes is useful, it's even more useful if you can tell +later what changed. The most useful command for this is another of the +`diff` family, namely `git-diff-tree`. + +`git-diff-tree` can be given two arbitrary trees, and it will tell you the +differences between them. Perhaps even more commonly, though, you can +give it just a single commit object, and it will figure out the parent +of that commit itself, and show the difference directly. Thus, to get +the same diff that we've already seen several times, we can now do + +---------------- +$ git-diff-tree -p HEAD +---------------- + +(again, `-p` means to show the difference as a human-readable patch), +and it will show what the last commit (in `HEAD`) actually changed. + +[NOTE] +============ +Here is an ASCII art by Jon Loeliger that illustrates how +various diff-\* commands compare things. + + diff-tree + +----+ + | | + | | + V V + +-----------+ + | Object DB | + | Backing | + | Store | + +-----------+ + ^ ^ + | | + | | diff-index --cached + | | + diff-index | V + | +-----------+ + | | Index | + | | "cache" | + | +-----------+ + | ^ + | | + | | diff-files + | | + V V + +-----------+ + | Working | + | Directory | + +-----------+ +============ + +More interestingly, you can also give `git-diff-tree` the `--pretty` flag, +which tells it to also show the commit message and author and date of the +commit, and you can tell it to show a whole series of diffs. +Alternatively, you can tell it to be "silent", and not show the diffs at +all, but just show the actual commit message. + +In fact, together with the `git-rev-list` program (which generates a +list of revisions), `git-diff-tree` ends up being a veritable fount of +changes. A trivial (but very useful) script called `git-whatchanged` is +included with git which does exactly this, and shows a log of recent +activities. + +To see the whole history of our pitiful little git-tutorial project, you +can do + +---------------- +$ git log +---------------- + +which shows just the log messages, or if we want to see the log together +with the associated patches use the more complex (and much more +powerful) + +---------------- +$ git-whatchanged -p --root +---------------- + +and you will see exactly what has changed in the repository over its +short history. + +[NOTE] +The `\--root` flag is a flag to `git-diff-tree` to tell it to +show the initial aka 'root' commit too. Normally you'd probably not +want to see the initial import diff, but since the tutorial project +was started from scratch and is so small, we use it to make the result +a bit more interesting. + +With that, you should now be having some inkling of what git does, and +can explore on your own. + +[NOTE] +Most likely, you are not directly using the core +git Plumbing commands, but using Porcelain like Cogito on top +of it. Cogito works a bit differently and you usually do not +have to run `git-update-index` yourself for changed files (you +do tell underlying git about additions and removals via +`cg-add` and `cg-rm` commands). Just before you make a commit +with `cg-commit`, Cogito figures out which files you modified, +and runs `git-update-index` on them for you. + + +Tagging a version +----------------- + +In git, there are two kinds of tags, a "light" one, and an "annotated tag". + +A "light" tag is technically nothing more than a branch, except we put +it in the `.git/refs/tags/` subdirectory instead of calling it a `head`. +So the simplest form of tag involves nothing more than + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git tag my-first-tag +------------------------------------------------ + +which just writes the current `HEAD` into the `.git/refs/tags/my-first-tag` +file, after which point you can then use this symbolic name for that +particular state. You can, for example, do + +---------------- +$ git diff my-first-tag +---------------- + +to diff your current state against that tag (which at this point will +obviously be an empty diff, but if you continue to develop and commit +stuff, you can use your tag as an "anchor-point" to see what has changed +since you tagged it. + +An "annotated tag" is actually a real git object, and contains not only a +pointer to the state you want to tag, but also a small tag name and +message, along with optionally a PGP signature that says that yes, +you really did +that tag. You create these annotated tags with either the `-a` or +`-s` flag to `git tag`: + +---------------- +$ git tag -s <tagname> +---------------- + +which will sign the current `HEAD` (but you can also give it another +argument that specifies the thing to tag, i.e., you could have tagged the +current `mybranch` point by using `git tag <tagname> mybranch`). + +You normally only do signed tags for major releases or things +like that, while the light-weight tags are useful for any marking you +want to do -- any time you decide that you want to remember a certain +point, just create a private tag for it, and you have a nice symbolic +name for the state at that point. + + +Copying repositories +-------------------- + +git repositories are normally totally self-sufficient and relocatable. +Unlike CVS, for example, there is no separate notion of +"repository" and "working tree". A git repository normally *is* the +working tree, with the local git information hidden in the `.git` +subdirectory. There is nothing else. What you see is what you got. + +[NOTE] +You can tell git to split the git internal information from +the directory that it tracks, but we'll ignore that for now: it's not +how normal projects work, and it's really only meant for special uses. +So the mental model of "the git information is always tied directly to +the working tree that it describes" may not be technically 100% +accurate, but it's a good model for all normal use. + +This has two implications: + + - if you grow bored with the tutorial repository you created (or you've + made a mistake and want to start all over), you can just do simple ++ +---------------- +$ rm -rf git-tutorial +---------------- ++ +and it will be gone. There's no external repository, and there's no +history outside the project you created. + + - if you want to move or duplicate a git repository, you can do so. There + is `git clone` command, but if all you want to do is just to + create a copy of your repository (with all the full history that + went along with it), you can do so with a regular + `cp -a git-tutorial new-git-tutorial`. ++ +Note that when you've moved or copied a git repository, your git index +file (which caches various information, notably some of the "stat" +information for the files involved) will likely need to be refreshed. +So after you do a `cp -a` to create a new copy, you'll want to do ++ +---------------- +$ git-update-index --refresh +---------------- ++ +in the new repository to make sure that the index file is up-to-date. + +Note that the second point is true even across machines. You can +duplicate a remote git repository with *any* regular copy mechanism, be it +`scp`, `rsync` or `wget`. + +When copying a remote repository, you'll want to at a minimum update the +index cache when you do this, and especially with other peoples' +repositories you often want to make sure that the index cache is in some +known state (you don't know *what* they've done and not yet checked in), +so usually you'll precede the `git-update-index` with a + +---------------- +$ git-read-tree --reset HEAD +$ git-update-index --refresh +---------------- + +which will force a total index re-build from the tree pointed to by `HEAD`. +It resets the index contents to `HEAD`, and then the `git-update-index` +makes sure to match up all index entries with the checked-out files. +If the original repository had uncommitted changes in its +working tree, `git-update-index --refresh` notices them and +tells you they need to be updated. + +The above can also be written as simply + +---------------- +$ git reset +---------------- + +and in fact a lot of the common git command combinations can be scripted +with the `git xyz` interfaces. You can learn things by just looking +at what the various git scripts do. For example, `git reset` is the +above two lines implemented in `git-reset`, but some things like +`git status` and `git commit` are slightly more complex scripts around +the basic git commands. + +Many (most?) public remote repositories will not contain any of +the checked out files or even an index file, and will *only* contain the +actual core git files. Such a repository usually doesn't even have the +`.git` subdirectory, but has all the git files directly in the +repository. + +To create your own local live copy of such a "raw" git repository, you'd +first create your own subdirectory for the project, and then copy the +raw repository contents into the `.git` directory. For example, to +create your own copy of the git repository, you'd do the following + +---------------- +$ mkdir my-git +$ cd my-git +$ rsync -rL rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ .git +---------------- + +followed by + +---------------- +$ git-read-tree HEAD +---------------- + +to populate the index. However, now you have populated the index, and +you have all the git internal files, but you will notice that you don't +actually have any of the working tree files to work on. To get +those, you'd check them out with + +---------------- +$ git-checkout-index -u -a +---------------- + +where the `-u` flag means that you want the checkout to keep the index +up-to-date (so that you don't have to refresh it afterward), and the +`-a` flag means "check out all files" (if you have a stale copy or an +older version of a checked out tree you may also need to add the `-f` +flag first, to tell git-checkout-index to *force* overwriting of any old +files). + +Again, this can all be simplified with + +---------------- +$ git clone rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ my-git +$ cd my-git +$ git checkout +---------------- + +which will end up doing all of the above for you. + +You have now successfully copied somebody else's (mine) remote +repository, and checked it out. + + +Creating a new branch +--------------------- + +Branches in git are really nothing more than pointers into the git +object database from within the `.git/refs/` subdirectory, and as we +already discussed, the `HEAD` branch is nothing but a symlink to one of +these object pointers. + +You can at any time create a new branch by just picking an arbitrary +point in the project history, and just writing the SHA1 name of that +object into a file under `.git/refs/heads/`. You can use any filename you +want (and indeed, subdirectories), but the convention is that the +"normal" branch is called `master`. That's just a convention, though, +and nothing enforces it. + +To show that as an example, let's go back to the git-tutorial repository we +used earlier, and create a branch in it. You do that by simply just +saying that you want to check out a new branch: + +------------ +$ git checkout -b mybranch +------------ + +will create a new branch based at the current `HEAD` position, and switch +to it. + +[NOTE] +================================================ +If you make the decision to start your new branch at some +other point in the history than the current `HEAD`, you can do so by +just telling `git checkout` what the base of the checkout would be. +In other words, if you have an earlier tag or branch, you'd just do + +------------ +$ git checkout -b mybranch earlier-commit +------------ + +and it would create the new branch `mybranch` at the earlier commit, +and check out the state at that time. +================================================ + +You can always just jump back to your original `master` branch by doing + +------------ +$ git checkout master +------------ + +(or any other branch-name, for that matter) and if you forget which +branch you happen to be on, a simple + +------------ +$ cat .git/HEAD +------------ + +will tell you where it's pointing. To get the list of branches +you have, you can say + +------------ +$ git branch +------------ + +which is nothing more than a simple script around `ls .git/refs/heads`. +There will be asterisk in front of the branch you are currently on. + +Sometimes you may wish to create a new branch _without_ actually +checking it out and switching to it. If so, just use the command + +------------ +$ git branch <branchname> [startingpoint] +------------ + +which will simply _create_ the branch, but will not do anything further. +You can then later -- once you decide that you want to actually develop +on that branch -- switch to that branch with a regular `git checkout` +with the branchname as the argument. + + +Merging two branches +-------------------- + +One of the ideas of having a branch is that you do some (possibly +experimental) work in it, and eventually merge it back to the main +branch. So assuming you created the above `mybranch` that started out +being the same as the original `master` branch, let's make sure we're in +that branch, and do some work there. + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git checkout mybranch +$ echo "Work, work, work" >>hello +$ git commit -m 'Some work.' -i hello +------------------------------------------------ + +Here, we just added another line to `hello`, and we used a shorthand for +doing both `git-update-index hello` and `git commit` by just giving the +filename directly to `git commit`, with an `-i` flag (it tells +git to 'include' that file in addition to what you have done to +the index file so far when making the commit). The `-m` flag is to give the +commit log message from the command line. + +Now, to make it a bit more interesting, let's assume that somebody else +does some work in the original branch, and simulate that by going back +to the master branch, and editing the same file differently there: + +------------ +$ git checkout master +------------ + +Here, take a moment to look at the contents of `hello`, and notice how they +don't contain the work we just did in `mybranch` -- because that work +hasn't happened in the `master` branch at all. Then do + +------------ +$ echo "Play, play, play" >>hello +$ echo "Lots of fun" >>example +$ git commit -m 'Some fun.' -i hello example +------------ + +since the master branch is obviously in a much better mood. + +Now, you've got two branches, and you decide that you want to merge the +work done. Before we do that, let's introduce a cool graphical tool that +helps you view what's going on: + +---------------- +$ gitk --all +---------------- + +will show you graphically both of your branches (that's what the `\--all` +means: normally it will just show you your current `HEAD`) and their +histories. You can also see exactly how they came to be from a common +source. + +Anyway, let's exit `gitk` (`^Q` or the File menu), and decide that we want +to merge the work we did on the `mybranch` branch into the `master` +branch (which is currently our `HEAD` too). To do that, there's a nice +script called `git merge`, which wants to know which branches you want +to resolve and what the merge is all about: + +------------ +$ git merge "Merge work in mybranch" HEAD mybranch +------------ + +where the first argument is going to be used as the commit message if +the merge can be resolved automatically. + +Now, in this case we've intentionally created a situation where the +merge will need to be fixed up by hand, though, so git will do as much +of it as it can automatically (which in this case is just merge the `example` +file, which had no differences in the `mybranch` branch), and say: + +---------------- + Auto-merging hello + CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in hello + Automatic merge failed; fix up by hand +---------------- + +It tells you that it did an "Automatic merge", which +failed due to conflicts in `hello`. + +Not to worry. It left the (trivial) conflict in `hello` in the same form you +should already be well used to if you've ever used CVS, so let's just +open `hello` in our editor (whatever that may be), and fix it up somehow. +I'd suggest just making it so that `hello` contains all four lines: + +------------ +Hello World +It's a new day for git +Play, play, play +Work, work, work +------------ + +and once you're happy with your manual merge, just do a + +------------ +$ git commit -i hello +------------ + +which will very loudly warn you that you're now committing a merge +(which is correct, so never mind), and you can write a small merge +message about your adventures in git-merge-land. + +After you're done, start up `gitk \--all` to see graphically what the +history looks like. Notice that `mybranch` still exists, and you can +switch to it, and continue to work with it if you want to. The +`mybranch` branch will not contain the merge, but next time you merge it +from the `master` branch, git will know how you merged it, so you'll not +have to do _that_ merge again. + +Another useful tool, especially if you do not always work in X-Window +environment, is `git show-branch`. + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git show-branch --topo-order master mybranch +* [master] Merge work in mybranch + ! [mybranch] Some work. +-- +- [master] Merge work in mybranch +*+ [mybranch] Some work. +------------------------------------------------ + +The first two lines indicate that it is showing the two branches +and the first line of the commit log message from their +top-of-the-tree commits, you are currently on `master` branch +(notice the asterisk `\*` character), and the first column for +the later output lines is used to show commits contained in the +`master` branch, and the second column for the `mybranch` +branch. Three commits are shown along with their log messages. +All of them have non blank characters in the first column (`*` +shows an ordinary commit on the current branch, `.` is a merge commit), which +means they are now part of the `master` branch. Only the "Some +work" commit has the plus `+` character in the second column, +because `mybranch` has not been merged to incorporate these +commits from the master branch. The string inside brackets +before the commit log message is a short name you can use to +name the commit. In the above example, 'master' and 'mybranch' +are branch heads. 'master~1' is the first parent of 'master' +branch head. Please see 'git-rev-parse' documentation if you +see more complex cases. + +Now, let's pretend you are the one who did all the work in +`mybranch`, and the fruit of your hard work has finally been merged +to the `master` branch. Let's go back to `mybranch`, and run +resolve to get the "upstream changes" back to your branch. + +------------ +$ git checkout mybranch +$ git merge "Merge upstream changes." HEAD master +------------ + +This outputs something like this (the actual commit object names +would be different) + +---------------- +Updating from ae3a2da... to a80b4aa.... +Fast forward + example | 1 + + hello | 1 + + 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) +---------------- + +Because your branch did not contain anything more than what are +already merged into the `master` branch, the resolve operation did +not actually do a merge. Instead, it just updated the top of +the tree of your branch to that of the `master` branch. This is +often called 'fast forward' merge. + +You can run `gitk \--all` again to see how the commit ancestry +looks like, or run `show-branch`, which tells you this. + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git show-branch master mybranch +! [master] Merge work in mybranch + * [mybranch] Merge work in mybranch +-- +-- [master] Merge work in mybranch +------------------------------------------------ + + +Merging external work +--------------------- + +It's usually much more common that you merge with somebody else than +merging with your own branches, so it's worth pointing out that git +makes that very easy too, and in fact, it's not that different from +doing a `git merge`. In fact, a remote merge ends up being nothing +more than "fetch the work from a remote repository into a temporary tag" +followed by a `git merge`. + +Fetching from a remote repository is done by, unsurprisingly, +`git fetch`: + +---------------- +$ git fetch <remote-repository> +---------------- + +One of the following transports can be used to name the +repository to download from: + +Rsync:: + `rsync://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/` ++ +Rsync transport is usable for both uploading and downloading, +but is completely unaware of what git does, and can produce +unexpected results when you download from the public repository +while the repository owner is uploading into it via `rsync` +transport. Most notably, it could update the files under +`refs/` which holds the object name of the topmost commits +before uploading the files in `objects/` -- the downloader would +obtain head commit object name while that object itself is still +not available in the repository. For this reason, it is +considered deprecated. + +SSH:: + `remote.machine:/path/to/repo.git/` or ++ +`ssh://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/` ++ +This transport can be used for both uploading and downloading, +and requires you to have a log-in privilege over `ssh` to the +remote machine. It finds out the set of objects the other side +lacks by exchanging the head commits both ends have and +transfers (close to) minimum set of objects. It is by far the +most efficient way to exchange git objects between repositories. + +Local directory:: + `/path/to/repo.git/` ++ +This transport is the same as SSH transport but uses `sh` to run +both ends on the local machine instead of running other end on +the remote machine via `ssh`. + +git Native:: + `git://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/` ++ +This transport was designed for anonymous downloading. Like SSH +transport, it finds out the set of objects the downstream side +lacks and transfers (close to) minimum set of objects. + +HTTP(S):: + `http://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/` ++ +Downloader from http and https URL +first obtains the topmost commit object name from the remote site +by looking at the specified refname under `repo.git/refs/` directory, +and then tries to obtain the +commit object by downloading from `repo.git/objects/xx/xxx\...` +using the object name of that commit object. Then it reads the +commit object to find out its parent commits and the associate +tree object; it repeats this process until it gets all the +necessary objects. Because of this behavior, they are +sometimes also called 'commit walkers'. ++ +The 'commit walkers' are sometimes also called 'dumb +transports', because they do not require any git aware smart +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 `resolve` that +with your current branch. + +However -- it's such a common thing to `fetch` and then +immediately `resolve`, that it's called `git pull`, and you can +simply do + +---------------- +$ git pull <remote-repository> +---------------- + +and optionally give a branch-name for the remote end as a second +argument. + +[NOTE] +You could do without using any branches at all, by +keeping as many local repositories as you would like to have +branches, and merging between them with `git pull`, just like +you merge between branches. The advantage of this approach is +that it lets you keep a set of files for each `branch` checked +out and you may find it easier to switch back and forth if you +juggle multiple lines of development simultaneously. Of +course, you will pay the price of more disk usage to hold +multiple working trees, but disk space is cheap these days. + +It is likely that you will be pulling from the same remote +repository from time to time. As a short hand, you can store +the remote repository URL in the local repository's config file +like this: + +------------------------------------------------ +$ git config remote.linus.url http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ +------------------------------------------------ + +and use the "linus" keyword with `git pull` instead of the full URL. + +Examples. + +. `git pull linus` +. `git pull linus tag v0.99.1` + +the above are equivalent to: + +. `git pull http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ HEAD` +. `git pull http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ tag v0.99.1` + + +How does the merge work? +------------------------ + +We said this tutorial shows what plumbing does to help you cope +with the porcelain that isn't flushing, but we so far did not +talk about how the merge really works. If you are following +this tutorial the first time, I'd suggest to skip to "Publishing +your work" section and come back here later. + +OK, still with me? To give us an example to look at, let's go +back to the earlier repository with "hello" and "example" file, +and bring ourselves back to the pre-merge state: + +------------ +$ git show-branch --more=3 master mybranch +! [master] Merge work in mybranch + * [mybranch] Merge work in mybranch +-- +-- [master] Merge work in mybranch ++* [master^2] Some work. ++* [master^] Some fun. +------------ + +Remember, before running `git merge`, our `master` head was at +"Some fun." commit, while our `mybranch` head was at "Some +work." commit. + +------------ +$ git checkout mybranch +$ git reset --hard master^2 +$ git checkout master +$ git reset --hard master^ +------------ + +After rewinding, the commit structure should look like this: + +------------ +$ git show-branch +* [master] Some fun. + ! [mybranch] Some work. +-- + + [mybranch] Some work. +* [master] Some fun. +*+ [mybranch^] New day. +------------ + +Now we are ready to experiment with the merge by hand. + +`git merge` command, when merging two branches, uses 3-way merge +algorithm. First, it finds the common ancestor between them. +The command it uses is `git-merge-base`: + +------------ +$ mb=$(git-merge-base HEAD mybranch) +------------ + +The command writes the commit object name of the common ancestor +to the standard output, so we captured its output to a variable, +because we will be using it in the next step. BTW, the common +ancestor commit is the "New day." commit in this case. You can +tell it by: + +------------ +$ git-name-rev $mb +my-first-tag +------------ + +After finding out a common ancestor commit, the second step is +this: + +------------ +$ git-read-tree -m -u $mb HEAD mybranch +------------ + +This is the same `git-read-tree` command we have already seen, +but it takes three trees, unlike previous examples. This reads +the contents of each tree into different 'stage' in the index +file (the first tree goes to stage 1, the second stage 2, +etc.). After reading three trees into three stages, the paths +that are the same in all three stages are 'collapsed' into stage +0. Also paths that are the same in two of three stages are +collapsed into stage 0, taking the SHA1 from either stage 2 or +stage 3, whichever is different from stage 1 (i.e. only one side +changed from the common ancestor). + +After 'collapsing' operation, paths that are different in three +trees are left in non-zero stages. At this point, you can +inspect the index file with this command: + +------------ +$ git-ls-files --stage +100644 7f8b141b65fdcee47321e399a2598a235a032422 0 example +100644 263414f423d0e4d70dae8fe53fa34614ff3e2860 1 hello +100644 06fa6a24256dc7e560efa5687fa84b51f0263c3a 2 hello +100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3 hello +------------ + +In our example of only two files, we did not have unchanged +files so only 'example' resulted in collapsing, but in real-life +large projects, only small number of files change in one commit, +and this 'collapsing' tends to trivially merge most of the paths +fairly quickly, leaving only a handful the real changes in non-zero +stages. + +To look at only non-zero stages, use `\--unmerged` flag: + +------------ +$ git-ls-files --unmerged +100644 263414f423d0e4d70dae8fe53fa34614ff3e2860 1 hello +100644 06fa6a24256dc7e560efa5687fa84b51f0263c3a 2 hello +100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3 hello +------------ + +The next step of merging is to merge these three versions of the +file, using 3-way merge. This is done by giving +`git-merge-one-file` command as one of the arguments to +`git-merge-index` command: + +------------ +$ git-merge-index git-merge-one-file hello +Auto-merging hello. +merge: warning: conflicts during merge +ERROR: Merge conflict in hello. +fatal: merge program failed +------------ + +`git-merge-one-file` script is called with parameters to +describe those three versions, and is responsible to leave the +merge results in the working tree. +It is a fairly straightforward shell script, and +eventually calls `merge` program from RCS suite to perform a +file-level 3-way merge. In this case, `merge` detects +conflicts, and the merge result with conflict marks is left in +the working tree.. This can be seen if you run `ls-files +--stage` again at this point: + +------------ +$ git-ls-files --stage +100644 7f8b141b65fdcee47321e399a2598a235a032422 0 example +100644 263414f423d0e4d70dae8fe53fa34614ff3e2860 1 hello +100644 06fa6a24256dc7e560efa5687fa84b51f0263c3a 2 hello +100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3 hello +------------ + +This is the state of the index file and the working file after +`git merge` returns control back to you, leaving the conflicting +merge for you to resolve. Notice that the path `hello` is still +unmerged, and what you see with `git diff` at this point is +differences since stage 2 (i.e. your version). + + +Publishing your work +-------------------- + +So, we can use somebody else's work from a remote repository, but +how can *you* prepare a repository to let other people pull from +it? + +Your do your real work in your working tree that has your +primary repository hanging under it as its `.git` subdirectory. +You *could* make that repository accessible remotely and ask +people to pull from it, but in practice that is not the way +things are usually done. A recommended way is to have a public +repository, make it reachable by other people, and when the +changes you made in your primary working tree are in good shape, +update the public repository from it. This is often called +'pushing'. + +[NOTE] +This public repository could further be mirrored, and that is +how git repositories at `kernel.org` are managed. + +Publishing the changes from your local (private) repository to +your remote (public) repository requires a write privilege on +the remote machine. You need to have an SSH account there to +run a single command, `git-receive-pack`. + +First, you need to create an empty repository on the remote +machine that will house your public repository. This empty +repository will be populated and be kept up-to-date by pushing +into it later. Obviously, this repository creation needs to be +done only once. + +[NOTE] +`git push` uses a pair of programs, +`git-send-pack` on your local machine, and `git-receive-pack` +on the remote machine. The communication between the two over +the network internally uses an SSH connection. + +Your private repository's git directory is usually `.git`, but +your public repository is often named after the project name, +i.e. `<project>.git`. Let's create such a public repository for +project `my-git`. After logging into the remote machine, create +an empty directory: + +------------ +$ mkdir my-git.git +------------ + +Then, make that directory into a git repository by running +`git init`, but this time, since its name is not the usual +`.git`, we do things slightly differently: + +------------ +$ GIT_DIR=my-git.git git-init +------------ + +Make sure this directory is available for others you want your +changes to be pulled by via the transport of your choice. Also +you need to make sure that you have the `git-receive-pack` +program on the `$PATH`. + +[NOTE] +Many installations of sshd do not invoke your shell as the login +shell when you directly run programs; what this means is that if +your login shell is `bash`, only `.bashrc` is read and not +`.bash_profile`. As a workaround, make sure `.bashrc` sets up +`$PATH` so that you can run `git-receive-pack` program. + +[NOTE] +If you plan to publish this repository to be accessed over http, +you should do `chmod +x my-git.git/hooks/post-update` at this +point. This makes sure that every time you push into this +repository, `git-update-server-info` is run. + +Your "public repository" is now ready to accept your changes. +Come back to the machine you have your private repository. From +there, run this command: + +------------ +$ git push <public-host>:/path/to/my-git.git master +------------ + +This synchronizes your public repository to match the named +branch head (i.e. `master` in this case) and objects reachable +from them in your current repository. + +As a real example, this is how I update my public git +repository. Kernel.org mirror network takes care of the +propagation to other publicly visible machines: + +------------ +$ git push master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git/ +------------ + + +Packing your repository +----------------------- + +Earlier, we saw that one file under `.git/objects/??/` directory +is stored for each git object you create. This representation +is efficient to create atomically and safely, but +not so convenient to transport over the network. Since git objects are +immutable once they are created, there is a way to optimize the +storage by "packing them together". The command + +------------ +$ git repack +------------ + +will do it for you. If you followed the tutorial examples, you +would have accumulated about 17 objects in `.git/objects/??/` +directories by now. `git repack` tells you how many objects it +packed, and stores the packed file in `.git/objects/pack` +directory. + +[NOTE] +You will see two files, `pack-\*.pack` and `pack-\*.idx`, +in `.git/objects/pack` directory. They are closely related to +each other, and if you ever copy them by hand to a different +repository for whatever reason, you should make sure you copy +them together. The former holds all the data from the objects +in the pack, and the latter holds the index for random +access. + +If you are paranoid, running `git-verify-pack` command would +detect if you have a corrupt pack, but do not worry too much. +Our programs are always perfect ;-). + +Once you have packed objects, you do not need to leave the +unpacked objects that are contained in the pack file anymore. + +------------ +$ git prune-packed +------------ + +would remove them for you. + +You can try running `find .git/objects -type f` before and after +you run `git prune-packed` if you are curious. Also `git +count-objects` would tell you how many unpacked objects are in +your repository and how much space they are consuming. + +[NOTE] +`git pull` is slightly cumbersome for HTTP transport, as a +packed repository may contain relatively few objects in a +relatively large pack. If you expect many HTTP pulls from your +public repository you might want to repack & prune often, or +never. + +If you run `git repack` again at this point, it will say +"Nothing to pack". Once you continue your development and +accumulate the changes, running `git repack` again will create a +new pack, that contains objects created since you packed your +repository the last time. We recommend that you pack your project +soon after the initial import (unless you are starting your +project from scratch), and then run `git repack` every once in a +while, depending on how active your project is. + +When a repository is synchronized via `git push` and `git pull` +objects packed in the source repository are usually stored +unpacked in the destination, unless rsync transport is used. +While this allows you to use different packing strategies on +both ends, it also means you may need to repack both +repositories every once in a while. + + +Working with Others +------------------- + +Although git is a truly distributed system, it is often +convenient to organize your project with an informal hierarchy +of developers. Linux kernel development is run this way. There +is a nice illustration (page 17, "Merges to Mainline") in +link:http://tinyurl.com/a2jdg[Randy Dunlap's presentation]. + +It should be stressed that this hierarchy is purely *informal*. +There is nothing fundamental in git that enforces the "chain of +patch flow" this hierarchy implies. You do not have to pull +from only one remote repository. + +A recommended workflow for a "project lead" goes like this: + +1. Prepare your primary repository on your local machine. Your + work is done there. + +2. Prepare a public repository accessible to others. ++ +If other people are pulling from your repository over dumb +transport protocols (HTTP), you need to keep this repository +'dumb transport friendly'. After `git init`, +`$GIT_DIR/hooks/post-update` copied from the standard templates +would contain a call to `git-update-server-info` but the +`post-update` hook itself is disabled by default -- enable it +with `chmod +x post-update`. This makes sure `git-update-server-info` +keeps the necessary files up-to-date. + +3. Push into the public repository from your primary + repository. + +4. `git repack` the public repository. This establishes a big + pack that contains the initial set of objects as the + baseline, and possibly `git prune` if the transport + used for pulling from your repository supports packed + repositories. + +5. Keep working in your primary repository. Your changes + include modifications of your own, patches you receive via + e-mails, and merges resulting from pulling the "public" + repositories of your "subsystem maintainers". ++ +You can repack this private repository whenever you feel like. + +6. Push your changes to the public repository, and announce it + to the public. + +7. Every once in a while, "git repack" the public repository. + Go back to step 5. and continue working. + + +A recommended work cycle for a "subsystem maintainer" who works +on that project and has an own "public repository" goes like this: + +1. Prepare your work repository, by `git clone` the public + repository of the "project lead". The URL used for the + initial cloning is stored in the remote.origin.url + configuration variable. + +2. Prepare a public repository accessible to others, just like + the "project lead" person does. + +3. Copy over the packed files from "project lead" public + repository to your public repository, unless the "project + lead" repository lives on the same machine as yours. In the + latter case, you can use `objects/info/alternates` file to + point at the repository you are borrowing from. + +4. Push into the public repository from your primary + repository. Run `git repack`, and possibly `git prune` if the + transport used for pulling from your repository supports + packed repositories. + +5. Keep working in your primary repository. Your changes + include modifications of your own, patches you receive via + e-mails, and merges resulting from pulling the "public" + repositories of your "project lead" and possibly your + "sub-subsystem maintainers". ++ +You can repack this private repository whenever you feel +like. + +6. Push your changes to your public repository, and ask your + "project lead" and possibly your "sub-subsystem + maintainers" to pull from it. + +7. Every once in a while, `git repack` the public repository. + Go back to step 5. and continue working. + + +A recommended work cycle for an "individual developer" who does +not have a "public" repository is somewhat different. It goes +like this: + +1. Prepare your work repository, by `git clone` the public + repository of the "project lead" (or a "subsystem + maintainer", if you work on a subsystem). The URL used for + the initial cloning is stored in the remote.origin.url + configuration variable. + +2. Do your work in your repository on 'master' branch. + +3. Run `git fetch origin` from the public repository of your + upstream every once in a while. This does only the first + half of `git pull` but does not merge. The head of the + public repository is stored in `.git/refs/remotes/origin/master`. + +4. Use `git cherry origin` to see which ones of your patches + were accepted, and/or use `git rebase origin` to port your + unmerged changes forward to the updated upstream. + +5. Use `git format-patch origin` to prepare patches for e-mail + submission to your upstream and send it out. Go back to + step 2. and continue. + + +Working with Others, Shared Repository Style +-------------------------------------------- + +If you are coming from CVS background, the style of cooperation +suggested in the previous section may be new to you. You do not +have to worry. git supports "shared public repository" style of +cooperation you are probably more familiar with as well. + +See link:cvs-migration.html[git for CVS users] for the details. + +Bundling your work together +--------------------------- + +It is likely that you will be working on more than one thing at +a time. It is easy to manage those more-or-less independent tasks +using branches with git. + +We have already seen how branches work previously, +with "fun and work" example using two branches. The idea is the +same if there are more than two branches. Let's say you started +out from "master" head, and have some new code in the "master" +branch, and two independent fixes in the "commit-fix" and +"diff-fix" branches: + +------------ +$ git show-branch +! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. + ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. + * [master] Release candidate #1 +--- + + [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. + + [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm. ++ [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. + * [master] Release candidate #1 +++* [diff-fix~2] Pretty-print messages. +------------ + +Both fixes are tested well, and at this point, you want to merge +in both of them. You could merge in 'diff-fix' first and then +'commit-fix' next, like this: + +------------ +$ git merge 'Merge fix in diff-fix' master diff-fix +$ git merge 'Merge fix in commit-fix' master commit-fix +------------ + +Which would result in: + +------------ +$ git show-branch +! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. + ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. + * [master] Merge fix in commit-fix +--- + - [master] Merge fix in commit-fix ++ * [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. + - [master~1] Merge fix in diff-fix + +* [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. + +* [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm. + * [master~2] Release candidate #1 +++* [master~3] Pretty-print messages. +------------ + +However, there is no particular reason to merge in one branch +first and the other next, when what you have are a set of truly +independent changes (if the order mattered, then they are not +independent by definition). You could instead merge those two +branches into the current branch at once. First let's undo what +we just did and start over. We would want to get the master +branch before these two merges by resetting it to 'master~2': + +------------ +$ git reset --hard master~2 +------------ + +You can make sure 'git show-branch' matches the state before +those two 'git merge' you just did. Then, instead of running +two 'git merge' commands in a row, you would merge these two +branch heads (this is known as 'making an Octopus'): + +------------ +$ git merge commit-fix diff-fix +$ git show-branch +! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. + ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. + * [master] Octopus merge of branches 'diff-fix' and 'commit-fix' +--- + - [master] Octopus merge of branches 'diff-fix' and 'commit-fix' ++ * [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization. + +* [diff-fix] Fix rename detection. + +* [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm. + * [master~1] Release candidate #1 +++* [master~2] Pretty-print messages. +------------ + +Note that you should not do Octopus because you can. An octopus +is a valid thing to do and often makes it easier to view the +commit history if you are merging more than two independent +changes at the same time. However, if you have merge conflicts +with any of the branches you are merging in and need to hand +resolve, that is an indication that the development happened in +those branches were not independent after all, and you should +merge two at a time, documenting how you resolved the conflicts, +and the reason why you preferred changes made in one side over +the other. Otherwise it would make the project history harder +to follow, not easier. + +[ to be continued.. cvsimports ] |