diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/howto')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/howto/rebase-and-edit.txt | 79 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt | 179 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt | 2 |
4 files changed, 181 insertions, 81 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/howto/rebase-and-edit.txt b/Documentation/howto/rebase-and-edit.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 554909fe08..0000000000 --- a/Documentation/howto/rebase-and-edit.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,79 +0,0 @@ -Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:16:02 -0700 (PDT) -From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> -To: Steve French <smfrench@austin.rr.com> -cc: git@vger.kernel.org -Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree -Abstract: In this article, Linus demonstrates how a broken commit - in a sequence of commits can be removed by rewinding the head and - reapplying selected changes. - -On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote: - -> That's correct. Same things apply: you can move a patch over, and create a -> new one with a modified comment, but basically the _old_ commit will be -> immutable. - -Let me clarify. - -You can entirely _drop_ old branches, so commits may be immutable, but -nothing forces you to keep them. Of course, when you drop a commit, you'll -always end up dropping all the commits that depended on it, and if you -actually got somebody else to pull that commit you can't drop it from -_their_ repository, but undoing things is not impossible. - -For example, let's say that you've made a mess of things: you've committed -three commits "old->a->b->c", and you notice that "a" was broken, but you -want to save "b" and "c". What you can do is - - # Create a branch "broken" that is the current code - # for reference - git branch broken - - # Reset the main branch to three parents back: this - # effectively undoes the three top commits - git reset HEAD^^^ - git checkout -f - - # Check the result visually to make sure you know what's - # going on - gitk --all - - # Re-apply the two top ones from "broken" - # - # First "parent of broken" (aka b): - git-diff-tree -p broken^ | git-apply --index - git commit --reedit=broken^ - - # Then "top of broken" (aka c): - git-diff-tree -p broken | git-apply --index - git commit --reedit=broken - -and you've now re-applied (and possibly edited the comments) the two -commits b/c, and commit "a" is basically gone (it still exists in the -"broken" branch, of course). - -Finally, check out the end result again: - - # Look at the new commit history - gitk --all - -to see that everything looks sensible. - -And then, you can just remove the broken branch if you decide you really -don't want it: - - # remove 'broken' branch - git branch -d broken - - # Prune old objects if you're really really sure - git prune - -And yeah, I'm sure there are other ways of doing this. And as usual, the -above is totally untested, and I just wrote it down in this email, so if -I've done something wrong, you'll have to figure it out on your own ;) - - Linus -- -To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in -the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org -More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html diff --git a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt index d214d4bf9d..74a1c0c4ba 100644 --- a/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt +++ b/Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt @@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ the kind of task StGIT is designed to do. I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core GIT tools. -I had a handful commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I +I had a handful of commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit ancestry graph looked like this: diff --git a/Documentation/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt b/Documentation/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..3b4a390005 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/howto/revert-a-faulty-merge.txt @@ -0,0 +1,179 @@ +Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:45:19 -0800 +From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> +Subject: Re: Odd merge behaviour involving reverts +Abstract: Sometimes a branch that was already merged to the mainline + is later found to be faulty. Linus and Junio give guidance on + recovering from such a premature merge and continuing development + after the offending branch is fixed. +Message-ID: <7vocz8a6zk.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org> +References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0812181949450.14014@localhost.localdomain> + +Alan <alan@clueserver.org> said: + + I have a master branch. We have a branch off of that that some + developers are doing work on. They claim it is ready. We merge it + into the master branch. It breaks something so we revert the merge. + They make changes to the code. they get it to a point where they say + it is ok and we merge again. + + When examined, we find that code changes made before the revert are + not in the master branch, but code changes after are in the master + branch. + +and asked for help recovering from this situation. + +The history immediately after the "revert of the merge" would look like +this: + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W + / + ---A---B + +where A and B are on the side development that was not so good, M is the +merge that brings these premature changes into the mainline, x are changes +unrelated to what the side branch did and already made on the mainline, +and W is the "revert of the merge M" (doesn't W look M upside down?). +IOW, "diff W^..W" is similar to "diff -R M^..M". + +Such a "revert" of a merge can be made with: + + $ git revert -m 1 M + +After the developers of the side branch fix their mistakes, the history +may look like this: + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x + / + ---A---B-------------------C---D + +where C and D are to fix what was broken in A and B, and you may already +have some other changes on the mainline after W. + +If you merge the updated side branch (with D at its tip), none of the +changes made in A nor B will be in the result, because they were reverted +by W. That is what Alan saw. + +Linus explains the situation: + + Reverting a regular commit just effectively undoes what that commit + did, and is fairly straightforward. But reverting a merge commit also + undoes the _data_ that the commit changed, but it does absolutely + nothing to the effects on _history_ that the merge had. + + So the merge will still exist, and it will still be seen as joining + the two branches together, and future merges will see that merge as + the last shared state - and the revert that reverted the merge brought + in will not affect that at all. + + So a "revert" undoes the data changes, but it's very much _not_ an + "undo" in the sense that it doesn't undo the effects of a commit on + the repository history. + + So if you think of "revert" as "undo", then you're going to always + miss this part of reverts. Yes, it undoes the data, but no, it doesn't + undo history. + +In such a situation, you would want to first revert the previous revert, +which would make the history look like this: + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---Y + / + ---A---B-------------------C---D + +where Y is the revert of W. Such a "revert of the revert" can be done +with: + + $ git revert W + +This history would (ignoring possible conflicts between what W and W..Y +changed) be equivalent to not having W nor Y at all in the history: + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x-------x---- + / + ---A---B-------------------C---D + +and merging the side branch again will not have conflict arising from an +earlier revert and revert of the revert. + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x-------x-------* + / / + ---A---B-------------------C---D + +Of course the changes made in C and D still can conflict with what was +done by any of the x, but that is just a normal merge conflict. + +On the other hand, if the developers of the side branch discarded their +faulty A and B, and redone the changes on top of the updated mainline +after the revert, the history would have looked like this: + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x + / \ + ---A---B A'--B'--C' + +If you reverted the revert in such a case as in the previous example: + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x---Y---* + / \ / + ---A---B A'--B'--C' + +where Y is the revert of W, A' and B' are rerolled A and B, and there may +also be a further fix-up C' on the side branch. "diff Y^..Y" is similar +to "diff -R W^..W" (which in turn means it is similar to "diff M^..M"), +and "diff A'^..C'" by definition would be similar but different from that, +because it is a rerolled series of the earlier change. There will be a +lot of overlapping changes that result in conflicts. So do not do "revert +of revert" blindly without thinking.. + + ---o---o---o---M---x---x---W---x---x + / \ + ---A---B A'--B'--C' + +In the history with rebased side branch, W (and M) are behind the merge +base of the updated branch and the tip of the mainline, and they should +merge without the past faulty merge and its revert getting in the way. + +To recap, these are two very different scenarios, and they want two very +different resolution strategies: + + - If the faulty side branch was fixed by adding corrections on top, then + doing a revert of the previous revert would be the right thing to do. + + - If the faulty side branch whose effects were discarded by an earlier + revert of a merge was rebuilt from scratch (i.e. rebasing and fixing, + as you seem to have interpreted), then re-merging the result without + doing anything else fancy would be the right thing to do. + +However, there are things to keep in mind when reverting a merge (and +reverting such a revert). + +For example, think about what reverting a merge (and then reverting the +revert) does to bisectability. Ignore the fact that the revert of a revert +is undoing it - just think of it as a "single commit that does a lot". +Because that is what it does. + +When you have a problem you are chasing down, and you hit a "revert this +merge", what you're hitting is essentially a single commit that contains +all the changes (but obviously in reverse) of all the commits that got +merged. So it's debugging hell, because now you don't have lots of small +changes that you can try to pinpoint which _part_ of it changes. + +But does it all work? Sure it does. You can revert a merge, and from a +purely technical angle, git did it very naturally and had no real +troubles. It just considered it a change from "state before merge" to +"state after merge", and that was it. Nothing complicated, nothing odd, +nothing really dangerous. Git will do it without even thinking about it. + +So from a technical angle, there's nothing wrong with reverting a merge, +but from a workflow angle it's something that you generally should try to +avoid. + +If at all possible, for example, if you find a problem that got merged +into the main tree, rather than revert the merge, try _really_ hard to +bisect the problem down into the branch you merged, and just fix it, or +try to revert the individual commit that caused it. + +Yes, it's more complex, and no, it's not always going to work (sometimes +the answer is: "oops, I really shouldn't have merged it, because it wasn't +ready yet, and I really need to undo _all_ of the merge"). So then you +really should revert the merge, but when you want to re-do the merge, you +now need to do it by reverting the revert. diff --git a/Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt b/Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt index 4032748608..622ee5c8dd 100644 --- a/Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt +++ b/Documentation/howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ Then, add something like this to your httpd.conf Require valid-user </Location> - Debian automatically reads all files under /etc/apach2/conf.d. + Debian automatically reads all files under /etc/apache2/conf.d. The password file can be somewhere else, but it has to be readable by Apache and preferably not readable by the world. |