![[tokkee]](http://tokkee.org/images/avatar.png){kind=avatar}
index c5e9ea8a428415940b04224b3ff902c609c9fc09..d7b227e6471f6571129477c57a25d383f6b8c008 100644 (file)
_________________
This manual is designed to be readable by someone with basic unix
-commandline skills, but no previous knowledge of git.
+command-line skills, but no previous knowledge of git.
Chapter 1 gives a brief overview of git commands, without any
explanation; you may prefer to skip to chapter 2 on a first reading.
As you can see, a commit shows who made the latest change, what they
did, and why.
-Every commit has a 40-hexdigit id, sometimes called the "object name"
-or the "SHA1 id", shown on the first line of the "git show" output.
-You can usually refer to a commit by a shorter name, such as a tag or a
-branch name, but this longer name can also be useful. Most
-importantly, it is a globally unique name for this commit: so if you
-tell somebody else the object name (for example in email), then you are
-guaranteed that name will refer to the same commit in their repository
-that it does in yours (assuming their repository has that commit at
-all).
+Every commit has a 40-hexdigit id, sometimes called the "object name" or the
+"SHA1 id", shown on the first line of the "git show" output. You can usually
+refer to a commit by a shorter name, such as a tag or a branch name, but this
+longer name can also be useful. Most importantly, it is a globally unique
+name for this commit: so if you tell somebody else the object name (for
+example in email), then you are guaranteed that name will refer to the same
+commit in their repository that it does in yours (assuming their repository
+has that commit at all). Since the object name is computed as a hash over the
+contents of the commit, you are guaranteed that the commit can never change
+without its name also changing.
+
+In fact, in <<git-internals>> we shall see that everything stored in git
+history, including file data and directory contents, is stored in an object
+with a name that is a hash of its contents.
Understanding history: commits, parents, and reachability
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
below. Commits are shown as "o", and the links between them with
lines drawn with - / and \. Time goes left to right:
+
+................................................
o--o--o <-- Branch A
/
o--o--o <-- master
\
o--o--o <-- Branch B
+................................................
If we need to talk about a particular commit, the character "o" may
be replaced with another letter or number.
$ cat .git/config
...
[remote "linux-nfs"]
- url = git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/git.git
- fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/linux-nfs-read/*
+ url = git://linux-nfs.org/pub/nfs-2.6.git
+ fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/linux-nfs/*
...
-------------------------------------------------
branch--then you are warned; the output may look something like this:
-------------------------------------------------
-$ git pull . next
-Trying really trivial in-index merge...
-fatal: Merge requires file-level merging
-Nope.
-Merging HEAD with 77976da35a11db4580b80ae27e8d65caf5208086
-Merging:
-15e2162 world
-77976da goodbye
-found 1 common ancestor(s):
-d122ed4 initial
-Auto-merging file.txt
+$ git merge next
+ 100% (4/4) done
+Auto-merged file.txt
CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in file.txt
Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.
-------------------------------------------------
information you need to help resolve the merge.
Files with conflicts are marked specially in the index, so until you
-resolve the problem and update the index, git commit will fail:
+resolve the problem and update the index, gitlink:git-commit[1] will
+fail:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git commit
file.txt: needs merge
-------------------------------------------------
-Also, git status will list those files as "unmerged".
+Also, gitlink:git-status[1] will list those files as "unmerged", and the
+files with conflicts will have conflict markers added, like this:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+<<<<<<< HEAD:file.txt
+Hello world
+=======
+Goodbye
+>>>>>>> 77976da35a11db4580b80ae27e8d65caf5208086:file.txt
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+All you need to do is edit the files to resolve the conflicts, and then
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git add file.txt
+$ git commit
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Note that the commit message will already be filled in for you with
+some information about the merge. Normally you can just use this
+default message unchanged, but you may add additional commentary of
+your own if desired.
+
+The above is all you need to know to resolve a simple merge. But git
+also provides more information to help resolve conflicts:
+
+Getting conflict-resolution help during a merge
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All of the changes that git was able to merge automatically are
already added to the index file, so gitlink:git-diff[1] shows only
-the conflicts. Also, it uses a somewhat unusual syntax:
+the conflicts. It uses an unusual syntax:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git diff
will be HEAD, the tip of the current branch; the other will be the
tip of the other branch, which is stored temporarily in MERGE_HEAD.
-The diff above shows the differences between the working-tree version
-of file.txt and two previous version: one version from HEAD, and one
-from MERGE_HEAD. So instead of preceding each line by a single "+"
-or "-", it now uses two columns: the first column is used for
-differences between the first parent and the working directory copy,
-and the second for differences between the second parent and the
-working directory copy. Thus after resolving the conflict in the
-obvious way, the diff will look like:
+During the merge, the index holds three versions of each file. Each of
+these three "file stages" represents a different version of the file:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git show :1:file.txt # the file in a common ancestor of both branches
+$ git show :2:file.txt # the version from HEAD, but including any
+ # nonconflicting changes from MERGE_HEAD
+$ git show :3:file.txt # the version from MERGE_HEAD, but including any
+ # nonconflicting changes from HEAD.
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Since the stage 2 and stage 3 versions have already been updated with
+nonconflicting changes, the only remaining differences between them are
+the important ones; thus gitlink:git-diff[1] can use the information in
+the index to show only those conflicts.
+
+The diff above shows the differences between the working-tree version of
+file.txt and the stage 2 and stage 3 versions. So instead of preceding
+each line by a single "+" or "-", it now uses two columns: the first
+column is used for differences between the first parent and the working
+directory copy, and the second for differences between the second parent
+and the working directory copy. (See the "COMBINED DIFF FORMAT" section
+of gitlink:git-diff-files[1] for a details of the format.)
+
+After resolving the conflict in the obvious way (but before updating the
+index), the diff will look like:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git diff
first parent, deleted "Goodbye" from the second parent, and added
"Goodbye world", which was previously absent from both.
-The gitlink:git-log[1] command also provides special help for merges:
+Some special diff options allow diffing the working directory against
+any of these stages:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git diff -1 file.txt # diff against stage 1
+$ git diff --base file.txt # same as the above
+$ git diff -2 file.txt # diff against stage 2
+$ git diff --ours file.txt # same as the above
+$ git diff -3 file.txt # diff against stage 3
+$ git diff --theirs file.txt # same as the above.
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+The gitlink:git-log[1] and gitk[1] commands also provide special help
+for merges:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git log --merge
+$ gitk --merge
-------------------------------------------------
-This will list all commits which exist only on HEAD or on MERGE_HEAD,
-and which touch an unmerged file.
+These will display all commits which exist only on HEAD or on
+MERGE_HEAD, and which touch an unmerged file.
-We can now add the resolved version to the index and commit:
+Each time you resolve the conflicts in a file and update the index:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git add file.txt
-$ git commit
-------------------------------------------------
-Note that the commit message will already be filled in for you with
-some information about the merge. Normally you can just use this
-default message unchanged, but you may add additional commentary of
-your own if desired.
+the different stages of that file will be "collapsed", after which
+git-diff will (by default) no longer show diffs for that file.
[[undoing-a-merge]]
undoing a merge
Or, if you've already commited the merge that you want to throw away,
-------------------------------------------------
-$ git reset --hard HEAD^
+$ git reset --hard ORIG_HEAD
-------------------------------------------------
However, this last command can be dangerous in some cases--never
conflicts manually, just as in the case of <<resolving-a-merge,
resolving a merge>>.
+[[fixing-a-mistake-by-editing-history]]
Fixing a mistake by editing history
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
gitlink:git-show[1]:
-------------------------------------------------
-$ git show HEAD^ path/to/file
+$ git show HEAD^:path/to/file
-------------------------------------------------
which will display the given version of the file.
In some situations the reflog may not be able to save you. For
example, suppose you delete a branch, then realize you need the history
-it pointed you. The reflog is also deleted; however, if you have not
+it contained. The reflog is also deleted; however, if you have not
yet pruned the repository, then you may still be able to find
the lost commits; run git-fsck and watch for output that mentions
"dangling commits":
you get exactly the history reachable from that commit that is lost.
(And notice that it might not be just one commit: we only report the
"tip of the line" as being dangling, but there might be a whole deep
-and complex commit history that was gotten dropped.)
+and complex commit history that was dropped.)
If you decide you want the history back, you can always create a new
reference pointing to it, for example, a new branch:
(But note that no such commit will be created in the case of a
<<fast-forwards,fast forward>>; instead, your branch will just be
-updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch).
+updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.)
The git-pull command can also be given "." as the "remote" repository,
in which case it just merges in a branch from the current repository; so
If you and maintainer both have accounts on the same machine, then
then you can just pull changes from each other's repositories
-directly; note that all of the command (gitlink:git-clone[1],
-git-fetch[1], git-pull[1], etc.) which accept a URL as an argument
+directly; note that all of the commands (gitlink:git-clone[1],
+git-fetch[1], git-pull[1], etc.) that accept a URL as an argument
will also accept a local file patch; so, for example, you can
use
correct, and understand why you made each change.
If you present all of your changes as a single patch (or commit), they
-may find it is too much to digest all at once.
+may find that it is too much to digest all at once.
If you present them with the entire history of your work, complete with
mistakes, corrections, and dead ends, they may be overwhelmed.
Keeping a patch series up to date using git-rebase
--------------------------------------------------
-Suppose you have a series of commits in a branch "mywork", which
-originally branched off from "origin".
-
-Suppose you create a branch "mywork" on a remote-tracking branch
-"origin", and created some commits on top of it:
+Suppose that you create a branch "mywork" on a remote-tracking branch
+"origin", and create some commits on top of it:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git checkout -b mywork origin
You have performed no merges into mywork, so it is just a simple linear
sequence of patches on top of "origin":
-
+................................................
o--o--o <-- origin
\
o--o--o <-- mywork
+................................................
Some more interesting work has been done in the upstream project, and
"origin" has advanced:
+................................................
o--o--O--o--o--o <-- origin
\
a--b--c <-- mywork
+................................................
At this point, you could use "pull" to merge your changes back in;
the result would create a new merge commit, like this:
-
+................................................
o--o--O--o--o--o <-- origin
\ \
a--b--c--m <-- mywork
+................................................
However, if you prefer to keep the history in mywork a simple series of
commits without any merges, you may instead choose to use
patches to the new mywork. The result will look like:
+................................................
o--o--O--o--o--o <-- origin
\
a'--b'--c' <-- mywork
+................................................
In the process, it may discover conflicts. In that case it will stop
and allow you to fix the conflicts; after fixing conflicts, use "git
$ git rebase --abort
-------------------------------------------------
+Modifying a single commit
+-------------------------
+
+We saw in <<fixing-a-mistake-by-editing-history>> that you can replace the
+most recent commit using
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git commit --amend
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+which will replace the old commit by a new commit incorporating your
+changes, giving you a chance to edit the old commit message first.
+
+You can also use a combination of this and gitlink:git-rebase[1] to edit
+commits further back in your history. First, tag the problematic commit with
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git tag bad mywork~5
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+(Either gitk or git-log may be useful for finding the commit.)
+
+Then check out a new branch at that commit, edit it, and rebase the rest of
+the series on top of it:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git checkout -b TMP bad
+$ # make changes here and update the index
+$ git commit --amend
+$ git rebase --onto TMP bad mywork
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+When you're done, you'll be left with mywork checked out, with the top patches
+on mywork reapplied on top of the modified commit you created in TMP. You can
+then clean up with
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git branch -d TMP
+$ git tag -d bad
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Note that the immutable nature of git history means that you haven't really
+"modified" existing commits; instead, you have replaced the old commits with
+new commits having new object names.
+
Reordering or selecting from a patch series
-------------------------------------------
-----------
There are numerous other tools, such as stgit, which exist for the
-purpose of maintaining a patch series. These are out of the scope of
+purpose of maintaining a patch series. These are outside of the scope of
this manual.
Problems with rewriting history
with merging. Suppose somebody fetches your branch and merges it into
their branch, with a result something like this:
+................................................
o--o--O--o--o--o <-- origin
\ \
t--t--t--m <-- their branch:
+................................................
Then suppose you modify the last three commits:
+................................................
o--o--o <-- new head of origin
/
o--o--O--o--o--o <-- old head of origin
+................................................
If we examined all this history together in one repository, it will
look like:
+................................................
o--o--o <-- new head of origin
/
o--o--O--o--o--o <-- old head of origin
\ \
t--t--t--m <-- their branch:
+................................................
Git has no way of knowing that the new head is an updated version of
the old head; it treats this situation exactly the same as it would if
A fast forward looks something like this:
+................................................
o--o--o--o <-- old head of the branch
\
o--o--o <-- new head of the branch
+................................................
In some cases it is possible that the new head will *not* actually be
realized she made a serious mistake, and decided to backtrack,
resulting in a situation like:
+................................................
o--o--o--o--a--b <-- old head of the branch
\
o--o--o <-- new head of the branch
-
-
+................................................
In this case, "git fetch" will fail, and print out a warning.
$ git fetch git://example.com/proj.git +master:refs/remotes/example/master
-------------------------------------------------
-Note the addition of the "+" sign. Be aware that commits which the
+Note the addition of the "+" sign. Be aware that commits that the
old version of example/master pointed at may be lost, as we saw in
the previous section.
---------------------------
We saw above that "origin" is just a shortcut to refer to the
-repository which you originally cloned from. This information is
+repository that you originally cloned from. This information is
stored in git configuration variables, which you can see using
gitlink:git-config[1]:
options mentioned above.
+[[git-internals]]
Git internals
=============
associated with sufficient information about the trees involved that
you can create a three-way merge between them.'
-Those are the three ONLY things that the directory cache does. It's a
+Those are the ONLY three things that the directory cache does. It's a
cache, and the normal operation is to re-generate it completely from a
known tree object, or update/compare it with a live tree that is being
developed. If you blow the directory cache away entirely, you generally
$ git-merge-index git-merge-one-file hello.c
-------------------------------------------------
-and that is what higher level `git resolve` is implemented with.
+and that is what higher level `git merge -s resolve` is implemented with.
How git stores objects efficiently: pack files
----------------------------------------------
Simplify beginning by suggesting disconnected head instead of
temporary branch creation?
-Explain how to refer to file stages in the "how to resolve a merge"
-section: diff -1, -2, -3, --ours, --theirs :1:/path notation. The
-"git ls-files --unmerged --stage" thing is sorta useful too,
-actually. And note gitk --merge.
-
Add more good examples. Entire sections of just cookbook examples
might be a good idea; maybe make an "advanced examples" section a
standard end-of-chapter section?