The previous commit said:
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do
so and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others,
because such a "two project merge" would be done after fetching
the other project into some location in the working tree of an
existing project and making sure how well they fit together, it
is sufficient to allow a local merge without such an option
pass-through from "git pull" to "git merge".
Prepare a patch to make it a reality, just in case it is needed.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While it makes sense to allow merging unrelated histories of two
projects that started independently into one, in the way "gitk" was
merged to "git" itself aka "the coolest merge ever", such a merge is
still an unusual event. Worse, if somebody creates an independent
history by starting from a tarball of an established project and
sends a pull request to the original project, "git merge" however
happily creates such a merge without any sign of something unusual
is happening.
Teach "git merge" to refuse to create such a merge by default,
unless the user passes a new "--allow-unrelated-histories" option to
tell it that the user is aware that two unrelated projects are
merged.
Because such a "two project merge" is a rare event, a configuration
option to always allow such a merge is not added.
We could add the same option to "git pull" and have it passed
through to underlying "git merge". I do not have a fundamental
opposition against such a feature, but this commit does not do so
and instead leaves it as low-hanging fruit for others, because such
a "two project merge" would be done after fetching the other project
into some location in the working tree of an existing project and
making sure how well they fit together, it is sufficient to allow a
local merge without such an option pass-through from "git pull" to
"git merge". Many tests that are updated by this patch does the
pass-through manually by turning:
git pull something
into its equivalent:
git fetch something &&
git merge --allow-unrelated-histories FETCH_HEAD
If somebody is inclined to add such an option, updated tests in this
change need to be adjusted back to:
git pull --allow-unrelated-histories something
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Improve the documentation of commands taking optional arguments in two
ways:
* Documents the behavior of '-O' (for grep) and '-S' (for commands
creating commits) when used without the optional argument.
* Document the syntax of these options.
For the second point, the behavior is documented in gitcli(7), but it is
easy for users to miss, and hard for the same user to understand why e.g.
"git status -u no" does not work.
Document this explicitly in the documentation of each short option having
an optional argument: they are the most error prone since there is no '='
sign between the option and its argument.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Reviewed-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The branch description will be included in 'git format-patch
--cover-letter' and in 'git pull-request' emails. It can also
be used in the automatic merge message. Tell the reader.
While here, clarify that the description may be a multi-line
explanation of the purpose of the branch's patch series.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The collect_parents() function now is responsible for
1. parsing the commits given on the command line into a list of
commits to be merged;
2. filtering these parents into independent ones; and
3. optionally calling fmt_merge_msg() via prepare_merge_message()
to prepare an auto-generated merge log message, using fake
contents that FETCH_HEAD would have had if these commits were
fetched from the current repository with "git pull . $args..."
Make "git merge FETCH_HEAD" to be the same as the traditional
git merge "$(git fmt-merge-msg <.git/FETCH_HEAD)" $commits
invocation of the command in "git pull", where $commits are the ones
that appear in FETCH_HEAD that are not marked as not-for-merge, by
making it do a bit more, specifically:
- noticing "FETCH_HEAD" is the only "commit" on the command line
and picking the commits that are not marked as not-for-merge as
the list of commits to be merged (substitute for step #1 above);
- letting the resulting list fed to step #2 above;
- doing the step #3 above, using the contents of the FETCH_HEAD
instead of fake contents crafted from the list of commits parsed
in the step #1 above.
Note that this changes the semantics. "git merge FETCH_HEAD" has
always behaved as if the first commit in the FETCH_HEAD file were
directly specified on the command line, creating a two-way merge
whose auto-generated merge log said "merge commit xyz". With this
change, if the previous fetch was to grab multiple branches (e.g.
"git fetch $there topic-a topic-b"), the new world order is to
create an octopus, behaving as if "git pull $there topic-a topic-b"
were run. This is a deliberate change to make that happen, and
can be seen in the changes to t3033 tests.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This should improve readability. Compare "thislongname" and
"thisLongName". The following keys are left in unchanged. We can
decide what to do with them later.
- am.keepcr
- core.autocrlf .safecrlf .trustctime
- diff.dirstat .noprefix
- gitcvs.usecrlfattr
- gui.blamehistoryctx .trustmtime
- pull.twohead
- receive.autogc
- sendemail.signedoffbycc .smtpsslcertpath .suppresscc
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
There's no point in this:
% git merge
fatal: No commit specified and merge.defaultToUpstream not set.
We know the most likely scenario is that the user wants to merge the
upstream, and if not, he can set merge.defaultToUpstream to false.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"When you need to use space, use dash" is a strange way to say that
you must not use a space. Because it is more common for the command
line descriptions to use dashed-multi-words, you do not even want to
use spaces in these places. Rephrase the documentation to avoid
this strangeness.
Fix a few existing multi-word argument help strings, i.e.
- GPG key-ids given to -S/--gpg-sign are "key-id";
- Refs used for storing notes are "notes-ref"; and
- Expiry timestamps given to --expire are "expiry-date".
and update the corresponding documentation pages.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The option to gpg sign a merge commit is available but was not
documented. Use wording from the git-commit(1) manpage.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Vigier <boklm@mars-attacks.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
You need at least four dashes in a line to have it recognized as listing
block delimiter by asciidoc.
Signed-off-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Commit 35d2fffd introduced 'git merge --abort' as a synonym to 'git reset
--merge', and added some failing tests in t7611-merge-abort.sh (search
'###' in this file) showing that 'git merge --abort' could not always
recover the pre-merge state.
Still, in many cases, 'git merge --abort' just works, and it is usually
considered that the ability to start a merge with uncommited changes is
an important property of Git.
Weaken the warning by discouraging only merge with /non-trivial/
uncommited changes.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
White-spaces, missing braces, standardize --[no-]foo.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When asking Git to merge a tag (such as a signed tag or annotated tag),
it will always create a merge commit even if fast-forward was possible.
It's like having --no-ff present on the command line.
It's a difference from the default behavior described in git-merge.txt.
It should be documented as an exception of "FAST-FORWARD MERGE" section
and "--ff" option description.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Yann Droneaud <ydroneaud@opteya.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This change was already done by 0e615b252f (Matthieu Moy, Tue Nov 2
2010, Replace "remote tracking" with "remote-tracking"), but new
instances of remote tracking (without dash) were introduced in the
meantime.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- (glossary) the quotes around the Wikipedia URL prevented its
linkification in frontends that support it; remove them
- (manual) newer version (SHA-1) == following, older == preceding, not
the other way around
- trivial typo and wording fixes
Signed-off-by: Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
- (glossary) the quotes around the Wikipedia URL prevented its
linkification in frontends that support it; remove them
- (manual) newer version (SHA-1) == following, older == preceding, not
the other way around
- trivial typo and wording fixes
Signed-off-by: Štěpán Němec <stepnem@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Traditionally, a cleanly resolved merge was committed by "git merge" using
the auto-generated merge commit log message without invoking the editor.
After 5 years of use in the field, it turns out that people perform too
many unjustified merges of the upstream history into their topic branches.
These merges are not just useless, but they are often not explained well,
and making the end result unreadable when it gets time for merging their
history back to their upstream.
Earlier we added the "--edit" option to the command, so that people can
edit the log message to explain and justify their merge commits. Let's
take it one step further and spawn the editor by default when we are in an
interactive session (i.e. the standard input and the standard output are
pointing at the same tty device).
There may be existing scripts that leave the standard input and the
standard output of the "git merge" connected to whatever environment the
scripts were started, and such invocation might trigger the above
"interactive session" heuristics. GIT_MERGE_AUTOEDIT environment variable
can be set to "no" at the beginning of such scripts to use the historical
behaviour while the script runs.
Note that this backward compatibility is meant only for scripts, and we
deliberately do *not* support "merge.edit = yes/no/auto" configuration
option to allow people to keep the historical behaviour.
Suggested-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git merge" without specifying any commit is a no-op by default.
A new option merge.defaultupstream can be set to true to cause such an
invocation of the command to merge the upstream branches configured for
the current branch by using their last observed values stored in their
remote tracking branches.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
Teach 'git merge' the --abort option, which verifies the existence of
MERGE_HEAD and then invokes 'git reset --merge' to abort the current
in-progress merge and attempt to reconstruct the pre-merge state.
The reason for adding this option is to provide a user interface for
aborting an in-progress merge that is consistent with the interface
for aborting a rebase ('git rebase --abort'), aborting the application
of a patch series ('git am --abort'), and aborting an in-progress notes
merge ('git notes merge --abort').
The patch includes documentation and testcases that explain and verify
the various scenarios in which 'git merge --abort' can run. The
testcases also document the cases in which 'git merge --abort' is
unable to correctly restore the pre-merge state (look for the '###'
comments towards the bottom of t/t7609-merge-abort.sh).
This patch has been improved by the following contributions:
- Jonathan Nieder: Move test documentation into test_description
Thanks-to: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Inside an element of an enumerated list, the second and subsequent
paragraphs need to lose their indent and have to be strung together with a
line with a single '+' on it instead. Otherwise the lines below are shown
in typewriter face, which just looks wrong.
Signed-off-by: Nathan W. Panike <nathan.panike@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When the user specifies a message, use fmt_merge_msg_shortlog() to
append the shortlog.
Previously, when a message was specified, we ignored the merge title
("Merge <foo> into <bar>") and shortlog from fmt_merge_msg().
Update the documentation for -m to reflect this too.
Signed-off-by: Tay Ray Chuan <rctay89@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Also move -X's description next to -s's in merge-options.txt.
This makes it easier to learn how to specify merge strategy options.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
commit 57bddb11 (Documentation/git-merge: reword references to
"remote" and "pull", 2010-01-07) fixed the manual to drop the
assumption that the other branch being merged is from a remote
repository. Unfortunately, in a few places, to do so it
introduced the antecedentless phrase "their versions". Worse, in
passages like the following, 'they' is playing two roles.
| highlighting changes from both the HEAD and their versions.
|
| * Look at the diffs on their own. 'git log --merge -p <path>'
Using HEAD and MERGE_HEAD nicely assigns terminology to "our" and
"their" sides. It also provides the reader with practice using
names that git will recognize on the command line.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The user most likely does not care about the exact order of
operations because he cannot see it happening anyway. Instead,
try to explain what it means to merge two commits into a single
tree.
While at it:
- Change the heading to TRUE MERGE. The entire manual page is
about how merges work.
- Document MERGE_HEAD. It is a useful feature, since it makes
the parents of the intended merge commit easier to refer to.
- Do not assume commits named on the 'git merge' command line come
from another repository. For simplicity, the discussion of
conflicts still does assume that there is only one and it is a
branch head.
- Do not start list items with `code`. Otherwise, a toolchain bug
produces a line break in the generated nroff, resulting in odd
extra space.
Suggested-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Novices sometimes find the behavior of 'git merge' in the
fast-forward case surprising. Describe it thoroughly.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
A merge-based operation in git can fail in two ways: one that
stops before touching anything, or one that goes ahead and
results in conflicts.
As the 'git merge' manual explains:
| A merge is always between the current `HEAD` and one or more
| commits (usually, branch head or tag), and the index file must
| match the tree of `HEAD` commit (i.e. the contents of the last commit)
| when it starts out.
Unfortunately, the placement of this sentence makes it easy to
skip over, and its formulation leaves the important point, that
any other attempted merge will be gracefully aborted, unspoken.
So give this point its own section and expand upon it.
Probably this could be simplified somewhat: after all, a change
registered in the index is just a special kind of local
uncommited change, so the second added paragraph is only a
special case of the first. It seemed more helpful to be explicit
here.
Inspired by <http://gitster.livejournal.com/25801.html>.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The reader unfamiliar with the concepts of branching and merging
would have been completely lost. Try to help him with a diagram.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
So the section layout changes as follows:
NAME
SYNOPSIS
DESCRIPTION
OPTIONS
-MERGE STRATEGIES
HOW MERGE WORKS
HOW CONFLICTS ARE PRESENTED
HOW TO RESOLVE CONFLICTS
EXAMPLES
+MERGE STRATEGIES
CONFIGURATION
SEE ALSO
AUTHOR
DOCUMENTATION
GIT
NOTES
The first-time user will care more about conflicts than about
strategies other than 'recursive'.
One of the examples uses -s ours, but I do not think this hinders
readability.
Suggested-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The 'merge' manual suggests 'reset' to cancel a merge at the end
of the Merge Strategies list. It is more logical to explain this
right before explaining how merge conflicts work, so the daunted
reader can have a way out when he or she needs it most.
While at it, make the advice more dependable and self-contained
by providing the --merge option.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Configuration and environment variables belong to the back matter
of a manual page.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The documentation was quite inconsistent when spelling 'git cmd' if it
only refers to the program, not to some specific invocation syntax:
both 'git-cmd' and 'git cmd' spellings exist.
The current trend goes towards dashless forms, and there is precedent
in 647ac70 (git-svn.txt: stop using dash-form of commands.,
2009-07-07) to actively eliminate the dashed variants.
Replace 'git-cmd' with 'git cmd' throughout, except where git-shell,
git-cvsserver, git-upload-pack, git-receive-pack, and
git-upload-archive are concerned, because those really live in the
$PATH.
Use `code snippet` style instead of 'emphasis' for `git cmd ...`
according to the following rules:
* The SYNOPSIS sections are left untouched.
* If the intent is that the user type the command exactly as given, it
is `code`.
If the user is only loosely referred to a command and/or option, it
remains 'emphasised'.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
We do this for both git-merge and git-pull, so as to hopefully alert
(over)users of git-pull to the issue.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
The git-merge manpage was written in terms of merging a "remote",
which is no longer the case: you merge local or remote-tracking
branches; pull is for actual remotes.
Adjust the manpage accordingly. We refer to the arguments as
"commits", and change instances of "remote" to "other" (where branches
are concerned) or "theirs" (where conflict sides are concerned).
Remove the single reference to "pulling".
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Introduce a command line option to override rerere.autoupdate configuration
variable to make it more useful.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "git pull" documentation has examples which follow an outdated
style. Update the examples to use "git merge" where appropriate and
move the examples to the corresponding manpages.
Furthermore,
- show that pull is equivalent to fetch and merge, which is still a
frequently asked question,
- explain the default fetch refspec.
Signed-off-by: Clemens Buchacher <drizzd@aon.at>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Sounds better this way, at least to my ears. ("The syntax and
supported options of git merge" is a plural noun. "the same"
instead of "equal" sounds less technical and seems to convey
the meaning better here.)
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The fmt-merge-message builtin can be invoked as "git fmt-merge-msg" rather
than through the hard link in GIT_EXEC_PATH. Although this is unlikely to
confuse most script writers, it should not hurt to make the documentation
a little clearer anyway.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
merge only requires one <remote>, so "<remote>..." should be used in the
synopsis (and not "<remote> <remote>...").
Signed-off-by: Paul Bolle <pebolle@tiscali.nl>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
If literal text (asciidoc `...`) can be rendered in a differently from
normal text for each output format (man, HTML), then we do not need
extra quotes or other wrapping around inline literal text segments.
config.txt
Change '`...`' to `...`. In asciidoc, the single quotes provide
emphasis, literal text should be distintive enough.
Change "`...`" to `...`. These double quotes do not work if present
in the described config value, so drop them.
git-checkout.txt
Change "`...`" to `...` or `"..."`. All instances are command line
argument examples. One "`-`" becomes `-`. Two others are involve
curly braces, so move the double quotes inside the literal region to
indicate that they might need to be quoted on the command line of
certain shells (tcsh).
git-merge.txt
Change "`...`" to `...`. All instances are used to describe merge
conflict markers. The quotes should are not important.
git-rev-parse.txt
Change "`...`" to `...`. All instances are around command line
arguments where no in-shell quoting should be necessary.
gitcli.txt
Change `"..."` to `...`. All instances are around command line
examples or single command arguments. They do not semanticly belong
inside the literal text, and they are not needed outside it.
glossary-content.txt
user-manual.txt
Change "`...`" to `...`. All instances were around command lines.
Signed-off-by: Chris Johnsen <chris_johnsen@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Improve some minor language and format issues like hyphenation,
phrases, spacing, word order, comma, attributes.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In the section on conflict markers, the "<<<<<<<" sequence is compiled by
AsciiDoc into invalid XML. A way to resolve this is by inserting something
between the last two characters in that sequence (i.e. between '<' and '"').
This patch encloses the conflict markers in backticks, which renders them
in a monospace font (in the HTML version; the manual page is unaffected),
and with the pleasant side-effect that it also fixes the AsciiDoc compile
problem.
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We took it granted that everybody knows how to read the RCS merge style
conflicts, and did not give illustrations in the documentation. Now we
are introducing an alternative output style, it is time to document this.
The lack of illustration has been bugging me for a long time.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Junio C Hamano