From 1191ee1824aca8f817e531db6b779a11e7fe3c28 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "J. Bruce Fields" Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 01:33:55 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] user-manual: rewrap a few long lines Rewrap some long lines. Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" --- Documentation/user-manual.txt | 115 +++++++++++++++++----------------- 1 file changed, 59 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) diff --git a/Documentation/user-manual.txt b/Documentation/user-manual.txt index be5a1f4c1..8fd38e4ef 100644 --- a/Documentation/user-manual.txt +++ b/Documentation/user-manual.txt @@ -1377,8 +1377,8 @@ Ensuring reliability Checking the repository for corruption ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -The gitlink:git-fsck[1] command runs a number of self-consistency -checks on the repository, and reports on any problems. This may take some +The gitlink:git-fsck[1] command runs a number of self-consistency checks +on the repository, and reports on any problems. This may take some time. The most common warning by far is about "dangling" objects: ------------------------------------------------- @@ -1394,17 +1394,17 @@ dangling tree b24c2473f1fd3d91352a624795be026d64c8841f ... ------------------------------------------------- -Dangling objects are objects that are harmless, but also unnecessary; you can -remove them at any time with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune option to -gitlink:git-gc[1]: +Dangling objects are objects that are harmless, but also unnecessary; +you can remove them at any time with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune +option to gitlink:git-gc[1]: ------------------------------------------------- $ git gc --prune ------------------------------------------------- -This may be time-consuming. Unlike most other git operations (including git-gc -when run without any options), it is not safe to prune while other git -operations are in progress in the same repository. +This may be time-consuming. Unlike most other git operations (including +git-gc when run without any options), it is not safe to prune while +other git operations are in progress in the same repository. For more about dangling objects, see <>. @@ -1537,8 +1537,8 @@ repository that you pulled from. <>; instead, your branch will just be 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 +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 the commands ------------------------------------------------- @@ -2645,13 +2645,13 @@ $ git-cat-file commit | head -1 since the tree object information is always the first line in a commit object. -Once you know the three trees you are going to merge (the one -"original" tree, aka the common case, and the two "result" trees, aka -the branches you want to merge), you do a "merge" read into the -index. This will complain if it has to throw away your old index contents, so you should +Once you know the three trees you are going to merge (the one "original" +tree, aka the common case, and the two "result" trees, aka the branches +you want to merge), you do a "merge" read into the index. This will +complain if it has to throw away your old index contents, so you should make sure that you've committed those - in fact you would normally -always do a merge against your last commit (which should thus match -what you have in your current index anyway). +always do a merge against your last commit (which should thus match what +you have in your current index anyway). To do the merge, do @@ -2801,32 +2801,34 @@ Dangling objects The gitlink:git-fsck[1] command will sometimes complain about dangling objects. They are not a problem. -The most common cause of dangling objects is that you've rebased a branch, or -you have pulled from somebody else who rebased a branch--see -<>. In that case, the old head of the original branch -still exists, as does obviously everything it pointed to. The branch pointer -itself just doesn't, since you replaced it with another one. - -There are also other situations too that cause dangling objects. For example, a -"dangling blob" may arise because you did a "git add" of a file, but then, -before you actually committed it and made it part of the bigger picture, you -changed something else in that file and committed that *updated* thing - the -old state that you added originally ends up not being pointed to by any -commit or tree, so it's now a dangling blob object. - -Similarly, when the "recursive" merge strategy runs, and finds that there -are criss-cross merges and thus more than one merge base (which is fairly -unusual, but it does happen), it will generate one temporary midway tree -(or possibly even more, if you had lots of criss-crossing merges and -more than two merge bases) as a temporary internal merge base, and again, -those are real objects, but the end result will not end up pointing to -them, so they end up "dangling" in your repository. - -Generally, dangling objects aren't anything to worry about. They can even -be very useful: if you screw something up, the dangling objects can be how -you recover your old tree (say, you did a rebase, and realized that you -really didn't want to - you can look at what dangling objects you have, -and decide to reset your head to some old dangling state). +The most common cause of dangling objects is that you've rebased a +branch, or you have pulled from somebody else who rebased a branch--see +<>. In that case, the old head of the original +branch still exists, as does obviously everything it pointed to. The +branch pointer itself just doesn't, since you replaced it with another +one. + +There are also other situations too that cause dangling objects. For +example, a "dangling blob" may arise because you did a "git add" of a +file, but then, before you actually committed it and made it part of the +bigger picture, you changed something else in that file and committed +that *updated* thing - the old state that you added originally ends up +not being pointed to by any commit or tree, so it's now a dangling blob +object. + +Similarly, when the "recursive" merge strategy runs, and finds that +there are criss-cross merges and thus more than one merge base (which is +fairly unusual, but it does happen), it will generate one temporary +midway tree (or possibly even more, if you had lots of criss-crossing +merges and more than two merge bases) as a temporary internal merge +base, and again, those are real objects, but the end result will not end +up pointing to them, so they end up "dangling" in your repository. + +Generally, dangling objects aren't anything to worry about. They can +even be very useful: if you screw something up, the dangling objects can +be how you recover your old tree (say, you did a rebase, and realized +that you really didn't want to - you can look at what dangling objects +you have, and decide to reset your head to some old dangling state). For commits, the most useful thing to do with dangling objects tends to be to do a simple @@ -2835,23 +2837,24 @@ be to do a simple $ gitk --not --all ------------------------------------------------ -For blobs and trees, you can't do the same, but you can examine them. You -can just do +For blobs and trees, you can't do the same, but you can examine them. +You can just do ------------------------------------------------ $ git show ------------------------------------------------ -to show what the contents of the blob were (or, for a tree, basically what -the "ls" for that directory was), and that may give you some idea of what -the operation was that left that dangling object. +to show what the contents of the blob were (or, for a tree, basically +what the "ls" for that directory was), and that may give you some idea +of what the operation was that left that dangling object. -Usually, dangling blobs and trees aren't very interesting. They're almost -always the result of either being a half-way mergebase (the blob will -often even have the conflict markers from a merge in it, if you have had -conflicting merges that you fixed up by hand), or simply because you -interrupted a "git fetch" with ^C or something like that, leaving _some_ -of the new objects in the object database, but just dangling and useless. +Usually, dangling blobs and trees aren't very interesting. They're +almost always the result of either being a half-way mergebase (the blob +will often even have the conflict markers from a merge in it, if you +have had conflicting merges that you fixed up by hand), or simply +because you interrupted a "git fetch" with ^C or something like that, +leaving _some_ of the new objects in the object database, but just +dangling and useless. Anyway, once you are sure that you're not interested in any dangling state, you can just prune all unreachable objects: @@ -2860,9 +2863,9 @@ state, you can just prune all unreachable objects: $ git prune ------------------------------------------------ -and they'll be gone. But you should only run "git prune" on a quiescent -repository - it's kind of like doing a filesystem fsck recovery: you don't -want to do that while the filesystem is mounted. +and they'll be gone. But you should only run "git prune" on a quiescent +repository - it's kind of like doing a filesystem fsck recovery: you +don't want to do that while the filesystem is mounted. (The same is true of "git-fsck" itself, btw - but since git-fsck never actually *changes* the repository, it just reports -- 2.30.2