Junio screwed up when applying the previous round of the patch;
rewording from "previous" to "old" does make the description
clearer.
Also revert the rewording from head to branch. The description
is talking about the branch's tip commit and using the word head
is clearer.
Based on input from Sergei and Bruce.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Just for consistency, use the spelling URL everywhere.
Signed-off-by: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
If I'm handed a file, then it typically lives outside the
working directory. git-log only operates on in-tree files,
so the first 'filename' should be an in-tree one, or it should
look at all files. This patch does the latter, so it would
also find renamed files. However, it is also slower.
Signed-off-by: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
em dashes were used inconsistently in the manual.
This changes them to the way they are used in US English.
Signed-off-by: Lars Hjemli <hjemli@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Rework the introduction to the Submodules section to explain why
someone would use them, and fix up submodule references from the
tree-object and todo sections.
Signed-off-by: Michael Smith <msmith@cbnco.com>
Acked-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Michael Smith <msmith@cbnco.com>
Signed-off-by: Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
The scripts taken from Tony Luck's howto assume all refs can be found
under .git/refs, but this is not necessarily true, especially since
git-gc runs git-pack-refs.
Also add a note warning of this in the chapter that introduces refs, and
fix the same incorrect assumption in one other spot.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Actually I don't think we've previously mentioned .git/objects, so we
need a different introduction here.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Rewrite the introduction. Rewrite each section completely to make them
work in the new order, to add some examples, and to move plumbing
commands (like git-commit-tree) to the following chapter.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
The bottom-up blog, tree, commit order makes sense unless you want to
give explicit examples--it's easier to discover objects to examine if
you go in the other order....,
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Add an example using git-ls-files, standardize on the new "index"
terminology (as opposed to "cache"), attempt to clarify discussion and
make it a little shorter, avoid some unnecessary jargon ("write-back
cache").
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
The low-level index operations aren't as important to regular users as
the rest of this "git concepts" chapter; so move it into a separate
chapter, and do some minor cleanup.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
"git internals" sounds like something only git developers must know
about, but this stuff should be of wider interest. Rename the chapter
and give it a slightly friendlier introduction.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
The descriptions of the various object types should all be a subsection
of the "Object Database" section.
I cribbed most of this chapter from the README (now core-intro.txt and
git(7)), because there's stuff in there people need to know and I was
too lazy to rewrite it. The audience isn't quite right, though--the
chapter is a mixture of user- and developer- level documentation that
isn't as appropriate now as it was originally.
So, reserve this chapter for stuff users need to know, and move the
source code introduction into a new "git hacking" chapter where we'll
also move any hacker-only technical details.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Actually, we should have a competition for the favorite example commit.
Criteria:
- length: one-line changes with one-line comments preferred,
and no long lines
- significance/memorability
- comic value
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
The immediate motivation for writing this section was to explain the
various places ignore patterns could be used. However, I still think
.gitignore is the case most people will want to learn about first. It
also makes it a bit more concrete to introduce ignore patterns in the
context of .gitignore first. And the existance of gitignore(5) relieves
the pressure to explain it all here.
So, stick to the .gitignore example, with only a brief mention of the
others, explain the syntax only by example, and leave the rest to
gitignore(5).
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Cc: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
The git gui project seems to be still in early stages, but at a point
where it's worth mentioning as an alternative way of creating commits.
One feature of interest is the ability to manipulate individual diff
hunks. However, people have found that feature not to be easily
discoverable from the user-interface. Pending some ui improvements, a
parenthetical hint here may help.
(Thanks to Steffen Prohask and Junio Hamano for suggesting the
language.)
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Update documentation to reflect the --track default.
That change seems to have happened in the 1.5.3 -rc's, so bump the "for
version x.y.z or newer" warning as well.
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Recently a user on the mailing list complained that they'd read the
manual but couldn't figure out how to keep a couple private repositories
in sync. They'd tried using push, and were surprised by the effect.
Add a little text in an attempt to make it clear that:
- Pushing to a branch that is checked out will have odd results.
- It's OK to synchronize just using pull if that's simpler.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
- "method of" is vulgar, "method for" is nicer
- "recovery" becomes "recovering" from Steve Hoelzer's original version
of this patch
- "if you want" is nicer as "if you wish"
- "you may" should be "you can"; "you may" is "you have permission to"
rather than "you can"'s "it is possible to"
Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
This one fixes a small formulation weirdness in
Documentation/user-manual.txt
Signed-off-by: Marcus Fritzsch <m@fritschy.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It turns out that the attribute definition we have had for a
long time to hide "^" character from AsciiDoc 7 was not honored
by AsciiDoc 8 even under "-a asciidoc7compatible" mode. There is
a similar breakage with the "compatible" mode with + characters.
The double colon at the end of definition list term needs
to be attached to the term, without a whitespace. After this
minimum fixups, AsciiDoc 8 (I used 8.2.1 on Debian) with
compatibility mode seems to produce reasonably good results.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In Documentation/user-manual.txt the example
$ git checkout --track -b origin/maint maint
under "Getting updates with git pull", should read
$ git checkout --track -b maint origin/maint
This was noticed by Ron, and reported through
http://bugs.debian.org/427502
Signed-off-by: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org>
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Update text to reflect new position in appendix.
Update the name to reflect the fact that this is closer to reference
than tutorial documentation (as suggested by Jonas Fonseca).
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have
crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need
to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results
still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Only git-ls-files(1) describes the gitignore format in detail, and it does so
with reference to git-ls-files options. Most users don't use the plumbing
command git-ls-files directly, and shouldn't have to look in its manpage for
information on the gitignore format.
Create a new manpage gitignore(5) (Documentation/gitignore.txt), and factor
out the gitignore documentation into that file, changing it to refer to
.gitignore and $GIT_DIR/info/exclude as used by porcelain commands. Reference
gitignore(5) from other relevant manpages and documentation. Remove
now-redundant information on exclude patterns from git-ls-files(1), leaving
only information on how git-ls-files options specify exclude patterns and what
precedence they have.
Signed-off-by: Josh Triplett <josh@freedesktop.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The todo list at the end of the user manual says that something must be
said about .gitignore. Also, there seems to be a lack of documentation
on how to choose between the various types of ignore files (.gitignore
vs. .git/info/exclude, etc.).
This patch adds a section on ignoring files which try to introduce how
to tell git about ignored files, and how the different strategies
complement eachother.
The syntax of exclude patterns is explained in a simplified manner, with
a reference to git-ls-files(1) which already contains a more thorough
explanation.
Signed-off-by: Johan Herland <johan@herland.net>
Another amusing git exploration example brought up in irc. (Credit to
aeruder for the complete solution.)
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
I don't really want to look like we're encouraging the shared repository
thing. Take down some of the argument for using purely
single-developer-owned repositories and collaborating using patches and
pulls instead.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Helping a couple people set up public repos recently, I wanted to point
them at this piece of the user manual, but found it wasn't as helpful as
it could be:
- It starts with a big explanation of why you'd want a public
repository, not necessary in their case since they already knew
why they wanted that. So, separate that out.
- It skimps on some of the git-daemon details, and puts the http
export information first. Fix that.
Also group all the public repo subsections into a single section, and do
some miscellaneous related editing.
Signed-off-by: "J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@citi.umich.edu>
Sergei Organov