Browse Source
The "Discussion" section has a lot of useful information, but is a little wordy, especially for an already-long man page, and is designed for an audience more of potential git hackers than users, which probably doesn't make as much sense as git matures. Also, I (perhaps foolishly) forked a version in the user manual, which has been significantly rewritten in an attempt to address some of the above problems. So, remove this section and replace it by a (very terse) summary of the original material--my attempt at the World's Shortest Git Overview--and a reference to the appropriate chapter of the user manual. It's unfortunate to remove something that's been in this place for a long time, as some people may still depend on finding it there. But I think we'll want to do this some day anyway. Cc: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se> Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>maint
J. Bruce Fields
17 years ago
3 changed files with 54 additions and 597 deletions
@ -1,592 +0,0 @@
@@ -1,592 +0,0 @@
|
||||
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
||||
|
||||
GIT - the stupid content tracker |
||||
|
||||
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
||||
|
||||
"git" can mean anything, depending on your mood. |
||||
|
||||
- random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not |
||||
actually used by any common UNIX command. The fact that it is a |
||||
mispronunciation of "get" may or may not be relevant. |
||||
- stupid. contemptible and despicable. simple. Take your pick from the |
||||
dictionary of slang. |
||||
- "global information tracker": you're in a good mood, and it actually |
||||
works for you. Angels sing, and a light suddenly fills the room. |
||||
- "goddamn idiotic truckload of sh*t": when it breaks |
||||
|
||||
This is a (not so) stupid but extremely fast directory content manager. |
||||
It doesn't do a whole lot at its core, but what it 'does' do is track |
||||
directory contents efficiently. |
||||
|
||||
There are two object abstractions: the "object database", and the |
||||
"current directory cache" aka "index". |
||||
|
||||
The Object Database |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
The object database is literally just a content-addressable collection |
||||
of objects. All objects are named by their content, which is |
||||
approximated by the SHA1 hash of the object itself. Objects may refer |
||||
to other objects (by referencing their SHA1 hash), and so you can |
||||
build up a hierarchy of objects. |
||||
|
||||
All objects have a statically determined "type" aka "tag", which is |
||||
determined at object creation time, and which identifies the format of |
||||
the object (i.e. how it is used, and how it can refer to other |
||||
objects). There are currently four different object types: "blob", |
||||
"tree", "commit" and "tag". |
||||
|
||||
A "blob" object cannot refer to any other object, and is, like the type |
||||
implies, a pure storage object containing some user data. It is used to |
||||
actually store the file data, i.e. a blob object is associated with some |
||||
particular version of some file. |
||||
|
||||
A "tree" object is an object that ties one or more "blob" objects into a |
||||
directory structure. In addition, a tree object can refer to other tree |
||||
objects, thus creating a directory hierarchy. |
||||
|
||||
A "commit" object ties such directory hierarchies together into |
||||
a DAG of revisions - each "commit" is associated with exactly one tree |
||||
(the directory hierarchy at the time of the commit). In addition, a |
||||
"commit" refers to one or more "parent" commit objects that describe the |
||||
history of how we arrived at that directory hierarchy. |
||||
|
||||
As a special case, a commit object with no parents is called the "root" |
||||
object, and is the point of an initial project commit. Each project |
||||
must have at least one root, and while you can tie several different |
||||
root objects together into one project by creating a commit object which |
||||
has two or more separate roots as its ultimate parents, that's probably |
||||
just going to confuse people. So aim for the notion of "one root object |
||||
per project", even if git itself does not enforce that. |
||||
|
||||
A "tag" object symbolically identifies and can be used to sign other |
||||
objects. It contains the identifier and type of another object, a |
||||
symbolic name (of course!) and, optionally, a signature. |
||||
|
||||
Regardless of object type, all objects share the following |
||||
characteristics: they are all deflated with zlib, and have a header |
||||
that not only specifies their type, but also provides size information |
||||
about the data in the object. It's worth noting that the SHA1 hash |
||||
that is used to name the object is the hash of the original data |
||||
plus this header, so `sha1sum` 'file' does not match the object name |
||||
for 'file'. |
||||
(Historical note: in the dawn of the age of git the hash |
||||
was the sha1 of the 'compressed' object.) |
||||
|
||||
As a result, the general consistency of an object can always be tested |
||||
independently of the contents or the type of the object: all objects can |
||||
be validated by verifying that (a) their hashes match the content of the |
||||
file and (b) the object successfully inflates to a stream of bytes that |
||||
forms a sequence of <ascii type without space> + <space> + <ascii decimal |
||||
size> + <byte\0> + <binary object data>. |
||||
|
||||
The structured objects can further have their structure and |
||||
connectivity to other objects verified. This is generally done with |
||||
the `git-fsck` program, which generates a full dependency graph |
||||
of all objects, and verifies their internal consistency (in addition |
||||
to just verifying their superficial consistency through the hash). |
||||
|
||||
The object types in some more detail: |
||||
|
||||
Blob Object |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
A "blob" object is nothing but a binary blob of data, and doesn't |
||||
refer to anything else. There is no signature or any other |
||||
verification of the data, so while the object is consistent (it 'is' |
||||
indexed by its sha1 hash, so the data itself is certainly correct), it |
||||
has absolutely no other attributes. No name associations, no |
||||
permissions. It is purely a blob of data (i.e. normally "file |
||||
contents"). |
||||
|
||||
In particular, since the blob is entirely defined by its data, if two |
||||
files in a directory tree (or in multiple different versions of the |
||||
repository) have the same contents, they will share the same blob |
||||
object. The object is totally independent of its location in the |
||||
directory tree, and renaming a file does not change the object that |
||||
file is associated with in any way. |
||||
|
||||
A blob is typically created when gitlink:git-update-index[1] |
||||
(or gitlink:git-add[1]) is run, and its data can be accessed by |
||||
gitlink:git-cat-file[1]. |
||||
|
||||
Tree Object |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
The next hierarchical object type is the "tree" object. A tree object |
||||
is a list of mode/name/blob data, sorted by name. Alternatively, the |
||||
mode data may specify a directory mode, in which case instead of |
||||
naming a blob, that name is associated with another TREE object. |
||||
|
||||
Like the "blob" object, a tree object is uniquely determined by the |
||||
set contents, and so two separate but identical trees will always |
||||
share the exact same object. This is true at all levels, i.e. it's |
||||
true for a "leaf" tree (which does not refer to any other trees, only |
||||
blobs) as well as for a whole subdirectory. |
||||
|
||||
For that reason a "tree" object is just a pure data abstraction: it |
||||
has no history, no signatures, no verification of validity, except |
||||
that since the contents are again protected by the hash itself, we can |
||||
trust that the tree is immutable and its contents never change. |
||||
|
||||
So you can trust the contents of a tree to be valid, the same way you |
||||
can trust the contents of a blob, but you don't know where those |
||||
contents 'came' from. |
||||
|
||||
Side note on trees: since a "tree" object is a sorted list of |
||||
"filename+content", you can create a diff between two trees without |
||||
actually having to unpack two trees. Just ignore all common parts, |
||||
and your diff will look right. In other words, you can effectively |
||||
(and efficiently) tell the difference between any two random trees by |
||||
O(n) where "n" is the size of the difference, rather than the size of |
||||
the tree. |
||||
|
||||
Side note 2 on trees: since the name of a "blob" depends entirely and |
||||
exclusively on its contents (i.e. there are no names or permissions |
||||
involved), you can see trivial renames or permission changes by |
||||
noticing that the blob stayed the same. However, renames with data |
||||
changes need a smarter "diff" implementation. |
||||
|
||||
A tree is created with gitlink:git-write-tree[1] and |
||||
its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-ls-tree[1]. |
||||
Two trees can be compared with gitlink:git-diff-tree[1]. |
||||
|
||||
Commit Object |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
The "commit" object is an object that introduces the notion of |
||||
history into the picture. In contrast to the other objects, it |
||||
doesn't just describe the physical state of a tree, it describes how |
||||
we got there, and why. |
||||
|
||||
A "commit" is defined by the tree-object that it results in, the |
||||
parent commits (zero, one or more) that led up to that point, and a |
||||
comment on what happened. Again, a commit is not trusted per se: |
||||
the contents are well-defined and "safe" due to the cryptographically |
||||
strong signatures at all levels, but there is no reason to believe |
||||
that the tree is "good" or that the merge information makes sense. |
||||
The parents do not have to actually have any relationship with the |
||||
result, for example. |
||||
|
||||
Note on commits: unlike real SCM's, commits do not contain |
||||
rename information or file mode change information. All of that is |
||||
implicit in the trees involved (the result tree, and the result trees |
||||
of the parents), and describing that makes no sense in this idiotic |
||||
file manager. |
||||
|
||||
A commit is created with gitlink:git-commit-tree[1] and |
||||
its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1]. |
||||
|
||||
Trust |
||||
~~~~~ |
||||
An aside on the notion of "trust". Trust is really outside the scope |
||||
of "git", but it's worth noting a few things. First off, since |
||||
everything is hashed with SHA1, you 'can' trust that an object is |
||||
intact and has not been messed with by external sources. So the name |
||||
of an object uniquely identifies a known state - just not a state that |
||||
you may want to trust. |
||||
|
||||
Furthermore, since the SHA1 signature of a commit refers to the |
||||
SHA1 signatures of the tree it is associated with and the signatures |
||||
of the parent, a single named commit specifies uniquely a whole set |
||||
of history, with full contents. You can't later fake any step of the |
||||
way once you have the name of a commit. |
||||
|
||||
So to introduce some real trust in the system, the only thing you need |
||||
to do is to digitally sign just 'one' special note, which includes the |
||||
name of a top-level commit. Your digital signature shows others |
||||
that you trust that commit, and the immutability of the history of |
||||
commits tells others that they can trust the whole history. |
||||
|
||||
In other words, you can easily validate a whole archive by just |
||||
sending out a single email that tells the people the name (SHA1 hash) |
||||
of the top commit, and digitally sign that email using something |
||||
like GPG/PGP. |
||||
|
||||
To assist in this, git also provides the tag object... |
||||
|
||||
Tag Object |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
Git provides the "tag" object to simplify creating, managing and |
||||
exchanging symbolic and signed tokens. The "tag" object at its |
||||
simplest simply symbolically identifies another object by containing |
||||
the sha1, type and symbolic name. |
||||
|
||||
However it can optionally contain additional signature information |
||||
(which git doesn't care about as long as there's less than 8k of |
||||
it). This can then be verified externally to git. |
||||
|
||||
Note that despite the tag features, "git" itself only handles content |
||||
integrity; the trust framework (and signature provision and |
||||
verification) has to come from outside. |
||||
|
||||
A tag is created with gitlink:git-mktag[1], |
||||
its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1], |
||||
and the signature can be verified by |
||||
gitlink:git-verify-tag[1]. |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The "index" aka "Current Directory Cache" |
||||
----------------------------------------- |
||||
The index is a simple binary file, which contains an efficient |
||||
representation of a virtual directory content at some random time. It |
||||
does so by a simple array that associates a set of names, dates, |
||||
permissions and content (aka "blob") objects together. The cache is |
||||
always kept ordered by name, and names are unique (with a few very |
||||
specific rules) at any point in time, but the cache has no long-term |
||||
meaning, and can be partially updated at any time. |
||||
|
||||
In particular, the index certainly does not need to be consistent with |
||||
the current directory contents (in fact, most operations will depend on |
||||
different ways to make the index 'not' be consistent with the directory |
||||
hierarchy), but it has three very important attributes: |
||||
|
||||
'(a) it can re-generate the full state it caches (not just the |
||||
directory structure: it contains pointers to the "blob" objects so |
||||
that it can regenerate the data too)' |
||||
|
||||
As a special case, there is a clear and unambiguous one-way mapping |
||||
from a current directory cache to a "tree object", which can be |
||||
efficiently created from just the current directory cache without |
||||
actually looking at any other data. So a directory cache at any one |
||||
time uniquely specifies one and only one "tree" object (but has |
||||
additional data to make it easy to match up that tree object with what |
||||
has happened in the directory) |
||||
|
||||
'(b) it has efficient methods for finding inconsistencies between that |
||||
cached state ("tree object waiting to be instantiated") and the |
||||
current state.' |
||||
|
||||
'(c) it can additionally efficiently represent information about merge |
||||
conflicts between different tree objects, allowing each pathname to be |
||||
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 |
||||
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 |
||||
haven't lost any information as long as you have the name of the tree |
||||
that it described. |
||||
|
||||
At the same time, the index is at the same time also the |
||||
staging area for creating new trees, and creating a new tree always |
||||
involves a controlled modification of the index file. In particular, |
||||
the index file can have the representation of an intermediate tree that |
||||
has not yet been instantiated. So the index can be thought of as a |
||||
write-back cache, which can contain dirty information that has not yet |
||||
been written back to the backing store. |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The Workflow |
||||
------------ |
||||
Generally, all "git" operations work on the index file. Some operations |
||||
work *purely* on the index file (showing the current state of the |
||||
index), but most operations move data to and from the index file. Either |
||||
from the database or from the working directory. Thus there are four |
||||
main combinations: |
||||
|
||||
1) working directory -> index |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
You update the index with information from the working directory with |
||||
the gitlink:git-update-index[1] command. You |
||||
generally update the index information by just specifying the filename |
||||
you want to update, like so: |
||||
|
||||
git-update-index filename |
||||
|
||||
but to avoid common mistakes with filename globbing etc, the command |
||||
will not normally add totally new entries or remove old entries, |
||||
i.e. it will normally just update existing cache entries. |
||||
|
||||
To tell git that yes, you really do realize that certain files no |
||||
longer exist, or that new files should be added, you |
||||
should use the `--remove` and `--add` flags respectively. |
||||
|
||||
NOTE! A `--remove` flag does 'not' mean that subsequent filenames will |
||||
necessarily be removed: if the files still exist in your directory |
||||
structure, the index will be updated with their new status, not |
||||
removed. The only thing `--remove` means is that update-cache will be |
||||
considering a removed file to be a valid thing, and if the file really |
||||
does not exist any more, it will update the index accordingly. |
||||
|
||||
As a special case, you can also do `git-update-index --refresh`, which |
||||
will refresh the "stat" information of each index to match the current |
||||
stat information. It will 'not' update the object status itself, and |
||||
it will only update the fields that are used to quickly test whether |
||||
an object still matches its old backing store object. |
||||
|
||||
2) index -> object database |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
You write your current index file to a "tree" object with the program |
||||
|
||||
git-write-tree |
||||
|
||||
that doesn't come with any options - it will just write out the |
||||
current index into the set of tree objects that describe that state, |
||||
and it will return the name of the resulting top-level tree. You can |
||||
use that tree to re-generate the index at any time by going in the |
||||
other direction: |
||||
|
||||
3) object database -> index |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
You read a "tree" file from the object database, and use that to |
||||
populate (and overwrite - don't do this if your index contains any |
||||
unsaved state that you might want to restore later!) your current |
||||
index. Normal operation is just |
||||
|
||||
git-read-tree <sha1 of tree> |
||||
|
||||
and your index file will now be equivalent to the tree that you saved |
||||
earlier. However, that is only your 'index' file: your working |
||||
directory contents have not been modified. |
||||
|
||||
4) index -> working directory |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
You update your working directory from the index by "checking out" |
||||
files. This is not a very common operation, since normally you'd just |
||||
keep your files updated, and rather than write to your working |
||||
directory, you'd tell the index files about the changes in your |
||||
working directory (i.e. `git-update-index`). |
||||
|
||||
However, if you decide to jump to a new version, or check out somebody |
||||
else's version, or just restore a previous tree, you'd populate your |
||||
index file with read-tree, and then you need to check out the result |
||||
with |
||||
|
||||
git-checkout-index filename |
||||
|
||||
or, if you want to check out all of the index, use `-a`. |
||||
|
||||
NOTE! git-checkout-index normally refuses to overwrite old files, so |
||||
if you have an old version of the tree already checked out, you will |
||||
need to use the "-f" flag ('before' the "-a" flag or the filename) to |
||||
'force' the checkout. |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Finally, there are a few odds and ends which are not purely moving |
||||
from one representation to the other: |
||||
|
||||
5) Tying it all together |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
To commit a tree you have instantiated with "git-write-tree", you'd |
||||
create a "commit" object that refers to that tree and the history |
||||
behind it - most notably the "parent" commits that preceded it in |
||||
history. |
||||
|
||||
Normally a "commit" has one parent: the previous state of the tree |
||||
before a certain change was made. However, sometimes it can have two |
||||
or more parent commits, in which case we call it a "merge", due to the |
||||
fact that such a commit brings together ("merges") two or more |
||||
previous states represented by other commits. |
||||
|
||||
In other words, while a "tree" represents a particular directory state |
||||
of a working directory, a "commit" represents that state in "time", |
||||
and explains how we got there. |
||||
|
||||
You create a commit object by giving it the tree that describes the |
||||
state at the time of the commit, and a list of parents: |
||||
|
||||
git-commit-tree <tree> -p <parent> [-p <parent2> ..] |
||||
|
||||
and then giving the reason for the commit on stdin (either through |
||||
redirection from a pipe or file, or by just typing it at the tty). |
||||
|
||||
git-commit-tree will return the name of the object that represents |
||||
that commit, and you should save it away for later use. Normally, |
||||
you'd commit a new `HEAD` state, and while git doesn't care where you |
||||
save the note about that state, in practice we tend to just write the |
||||
result to the file pointed at by `.git/HEAD`, so that we can always see |
||||
what the last committed state was. |
||||
|
||||
Here is an ASCII art by Jon Loeliger that illustrates how |
||||
various pieces fit together. |
||||
|
||||
------------ |
||||
|
||||
commit-tree |
||||
commit obj |
||||
+----+ |
||||
| | |
||||
| | |
||||
V V |
||||
+-----------+ |
||||
| Object DB | |
||||
| Backing | |
||||
| Store | |
||||
+-----------+ |
||||
^ |
||||
write-tree | | |
||||
tree obj | | |
||||
| | read-tree |
||||
| | tree obj |
||||
V |
||||
+-----------+ |
||||
| Index | |
||||
| "cache" | |
||||
+-----------+ |
||||
update-index ^ |
||||
blob obj | | |
||||
| | |
||||
checkout-index -u | | checkout-index |
||||
stat | | blob obj |
||||
V |
||||
+-----------+ |
||||
| Working | |
||||
| Directory | |
||||
+-----------+ |
||||
|
||||
------------ |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
6) Examining the data |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
You can examine the data represented in the object database and the |
||||
index with various helper tools. For every object, you can use |
||||
gitlink:git-cat-file[1] to examine details about the |
||||
object: |
||||
|
||||
git-cat-file -t <objectname> |
||||
|
||||
shows the type of the object, and once you have the type (which is |
||||
usually implicit in where you find the object), you can use |
||||
|
||||
git-cat-file blob|tree|commit|tag <objectname> |
||||
|
||||
to show its contents. NOTE! Trees have binary content, and as a result |
||||
there is a special helper for showing that content, called |
||||
`git-ls-tree`, which turns the binary content into a more easily |
||||
readable form. |
||||
|
||||
It's especially instructive to look at "commit" objects, since those |
||||
tend to be small and fairly self-explanatory. In particular, if you |
||||
follow the convention of having the top commit name in `.git/HEAD`, |
||||
you can do |
||||
|
||||
git-cat-file commit HEAD |
||||
|
||||
to see what the top commit was. |
||||
|
||||
7) Merging multiple trees |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
Git helps you do a three-way merge, which you can expand to n-way by |
||||
repeating the merge procedure arbitrary times until you finally |
||||
"commit" the state. The normal situation is that you'd only do one |
||||
three-way merge (two parents), and commit it, but if you like to, you |
||||
can do multiple parents in one go. |
||||
|
||||
To do a three-way merge, you need the two sets of "commit" objects |
||||
that you want to merge, use those to find the closest common parent (a |
||||
third "commit" object), and then use those commit objects to find the |
||||
state of the directory ("tree" object) at these points. |
||||
|
||||
To get the "base" for the merge, you first look up the common parent |
||||
of two commits with |
||||
|
||||
git-merge-base <commit1> <commit2> |
||||
|
||||
which will return you the commit they are both based on. You should |
||||
now look up the "tree" objects of those commits, which you can easily |
||||
do with (for example) |
||||
|
||||
git-cat-file commit <commitname> | 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 |
||||
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). |
||||
|
||||
To do the merge, do |
||||
|
||||
git-read-tree -m -u <origtree> <yourtree> <targettree> |
||||
|
||||
which will do all trivial merge operations for you directly in the |
||||
index file, and you can just write the result out with |
||||
`git-write-tree`. |
||||
|
||||
Historical note. We did not have `-u` facility when this |
||||
section was first written, so we used to warn that |
||||
the merge is done in the index file, not in your |
||||
working tree, and your working tree will not match your |
||||
index after this step. |
||||
This is no longer true. The above command, thanks to `-u` |
||||
option, updates your working tree with the merge results for |
||||
paths that have been trivially merged. |
||||
|
||||
|
||||
8) Merging multiple trees, continued |
||||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
||||
|
||||
Sadly, many merges aren't trivial. If there are files that have |
||||
been added, moved or removed, or if both branches have modified the |
||||
same file, you will be left with an index tree that contains "merge |
||||
entries" in it. Such an index tree can 'NOT' be written out to a tree |
||||
object, and you will have to resolve any such merge clashes using |
||||
other tools before you can write out the result. |
||||
|
||||
You can examine such index state with `git-ls-files --unmerged` |
||||
command. An example: |
||||
|
||||
------------------------------------------------ |
||||
$ git-read-tree -m $orig HEAD $target |
||||
$ git-ls-files --unmerged |
||||
100644 263414f423d0e4d70dae8fe53fa34614ff3e2860 1 hello.c |
||||
100644 06fa6a24256dc7e560efa5687fa84b51f0263c3a 2 hello.c |
||||
100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3 hello.c |
||||
------------------------------------------------ |
||||
|
||||
Each line of the `git-ls-files --unmerged` output begins with |
||||
the blob mode bits, blob SHA1, 'stage number', and the |
||||
filename. The 'stage number' is git's way to say which tree it |
||||
came from: stage 1 corresponds to `$orig` tree, stage 2 `HEAD` |
||||
tree, and stage3 `$target` tree. |
||||
|
||||
Earlier we said that trivial merges are done inside |
||||
`git-read-tree -m`. For example, if the file did not change |
||||
from `$orig` to `HEAD` nor `$target`, or if the file changed |
||||
from `$orig` to `HEAD` and `$orig` to `$target` the same way, |
||||
obviously the final outcome is what is in `HEAD`. What the |
||||
above example shows is that file `hello.c` was changed from |
||||
`$orig` to `HEAD` and `$orig` to `$target` in a different way. |
||||
You could resolve this by running your favorite 3-way merge |
||||
program, e.g. `diff3` or `merge`, on the blob objects from |
||||
these three stages yourself, like this: |
||||
|
||||
------------------------------------------------ |
||||
$ git-cat-file blob 263414f... >hello.c~1 |
||||
$ git-cat-file blob 06fa6a2... >hello.c~2 |
||||
$ git-cat-file blob cc44c73... >hello.c~3 |
||||
$ merge hello.c~2 hello.c~1 hello.c~3 |
||||
------------------------------------------------ |
||||
|
||||
This would leave the merge result in `hello.c~2` file, along |
||||
with conflict markers if there are conflicts. After verifying |
||||
the merge result makes sense, you can tell git what the final |
||||
merge result for this file is by: |
||||
|
||||
mv -f hello.c~2 hello.c |
||||
git-update-index hello.c |
||||
|
||||
When a path is in unmerged state, running `git-update-index` for |
||||
that path tells git to mark the path resolved. |
||||
|
||||
The above is the description of a git merge at the lowest level, |
||||
to help you understand what conceptually happens under the hood. |
||||
In practice, nobody, not even git itself, uses three `git-cat-file` |
||||
for this. There is `git-merge-index` program that extracts the |
||||
stages to temporary files and calls a "merge" script on it: |
||||
|
||||
git-merge-index git-merge-one-file hello.c |
||||
|
||||
and that is what higher level `git merge -s resolve` is implemented |
||||
with. |
Loading…
Reference in new issue