Most of these commands are not ones you want to invoke from the
command line on a frequent basis, or have been renamed in 1.5.0 to
more friendly versions, but the old names are being left behind to
support existing scripts in the wild.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Because we use the nospace option for our completion function for
the main 'git' wrapper bash won't automatically add a space after a
unique completion has been made by the user. This has been pointed
out in the past by Linus Torvalds as an undesired behavior. I agree.
We have to use the nospace option to ensure path completion for
a command such as `git show` works properly, but that breaks the
common case of getting the space for a unique completion. So now we
set IFS=$'\n' (linefeed) and add a trailing space to every possible
completion option. This causes bash to insert the space when the
completion is unique.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The new --interactive mode of git-add can be very useful, so users
will probably want to have completion for it.
Likewise the new git-add--interactive executable is actually a
plumbing command. Its invoked by `git add --interactive` and is
not intended to be invoked directly by the user. Therefore we
should hide it from the list of available Git commands.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Now that git-show is capable of displaying any file content from any
revision and is the approved Porcelain-ish level method of doing so,
cat-file should no longer be classified as a user-level utility by
the bash completion package.
I'm also classifying the new git-reflog command as plumbing for the
time being as there are no subcommands which are really useful to
the end-user. git-gc already invokes `git reflog expire --all`,
which makes it rather unnecessary for the user to invoke it directly.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The short options (-l, -f, -d) for git-branch are rather silly to
include in the completion generation as these options must be fully
typed out by the user and most users already know what the options
are anyway, so including them in the suggested completions does
not offer huge value. (The same goes for git-checkout and git-diff.)
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Now we have a separate reflog on HEAD, show-branch -g without an explicit
parameter defaults to the current branch, or HEAD when it is detached
from branches.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
We used to refuse leaving a detached HEAD when it wasn't matching an
existing ref so not to lose any commit that might have been performed
while not on any branch (unless -f was provided).
But this protection was completely bogus since it was still possible
to move to HEAD^ while still remaining detached but losing the last
commit anyway if there was one.
Now that we have a proper reflog for HEAD it is best to simply remove
that bogus (and admitedly annoying) protection and simply display the
last HEAD position instead. If one wants to recover a lost detached
state then it can be retrieved from the HEAD reflog.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This is to resolve conflicts early in preparation for possible
inclusion of "reflog on detached HEAD" series by Nico, as having
it in 1.5.0 would really help us remove confusion between
detached and attached states.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Its really nice to be able to run a test with -v and automatically
see the "debugging" dump from merge-recursive, especially if we
are actually trying to debug merge-recursive.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
My earlier fix (8371234e) to delete renamed tracked files from the
working directory also caused merge-recursive to delete untracked
files that were in the working directory.
The problem here is merge-recursive is deleting the working directory
file without regard for which branch it was associated with. What we
really want to do during a merge is to only delete files that were
renamed by the branch we are merging into the current branch,
and that are still tracked by the current branch. These files
definitely don't belong in the working directory anymore.
Anything else is either a merge conflict (already handled in other
parts of the code) or a file that is untracked by the current branch
and thus is not even participating in the merge. Its this latter
class that must be left alone.
For this fix to work we are now assuming that the first non-base
argument passed to git-merge-recursive always corresponds to the
working directory. This is already true for all in-tree callers
of merge-recursive. This assumption is also supported by the
long time usage message of "<base> ... -- <head> <remote>", where
"<head>" is implied to be HEAD, which is generally assumed to be
the current tree-ish.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Jakub Narebski pointed out the positional notation in git-remote's
documentation was very confusing, especially now that we have 3
supported subcommands. Instead of referring to subcommands by
position, refer to them by name.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The "git-config --rename-section" implementation would match sections
that are substrings of the section name to be renamed.
Signed-off-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Even when --unified=0 is given, the main loop to show the
combined textual diff needs to handle a line that is unchanged
but has lines that were deleted relative to a parent before it
(because that is where the lost lines hang). However, such a
line should not be emitted in the final output.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
I was reading the tutorial and noticed that we say this:
Also, don't use "git reset" on a publicly-visible branch that
other developers pull from, as git will be confused by history
that disappears in this way.
I do not think this is a good explanation. For example, if we
do this:
(1) I build a series and push it out.
---o---o---o---j
(2) Alice clones from me, and builds two commits on top of it.
---o---o---o---j---a---a
(3) I rewind one and build a few, and push them out.
---o---o---o...j
\
h---h---h---h
(4) Alice pulls from me again:
---o---o---o---j---a---a---*
\ /
h---h---h---h
Contrary to the description, git will happily have Alice merge
between the two branches, and never gets confused.
Maybe I did not want to have 'j' because it was an incomplete
solution to some problem, and Alice may have fixed it up with
her changes, while I abandoned that approach I started with 'j',
and worked on something completely unrelated in the four 'h'
commits. In such a case, the merge Alice would make would be
very sensible, and after she makes the merge if I pull from her,
the world will be perfect. I started something with 'j' and
dropped the ball, Alice picked it up and perfected it while I
went on to work on something else with 'h'. This would be a
perfect example of distributed parallel collaboration. There is
nothing confused about it.
The case the rewinding becomes problematic is if the work done
in 'h' tries to solve the same problem as 'j' tried to solve in
a different way. Then the merge forced on Alice would make her
pick between my previous attempt with her fixups (j+a) and my
second attempt (h). If 'a' commits were to fix up what 'j'
started, presumably Alice already studied and knows enough about
the problem so she should be able to make an informed decision
to pick between what 'j+a' and 'h' do.
A lot worse case is if Alice's work is not at all related to
what 'j' wanted to do (she did not mean to pick up from where I
left off -- she just wanted to work on something different).
Then she would not be familiar enough with what 'j' and 'h'
tried to achieve, and I'd be forcing her to pick between the
two. Of course if she can make the right decision, then again
that is a perfect example of distributed collaboration, but that
does not change the fact that I'd be forcing her to clean up my
mess.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This allows git-cherry-pick and git-revert to properly identify
themselves in the resulting reflog entries. Earlier they were
recorded as what git-commit has done.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Even when -l is not given from the command line, the repository
may have the configuration variable core.logallrefupdates set,
or an old-timer might have done ": >.git/logs/refs/heads/new"
before running "git branch new". In these cases, the code gave
an uninitialized msg[] from the stack to be written out as the
reflog message.
This also passes a different message when '-f' option is used.
Saying "git branch -f branch some-commit" is a moral equilvalent
of doing "git-reset some-commit" while on the branch.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Currently, the search for all reflogs depends on the existence of
corresponding refs under the .git/refs/ directory. Let's scan the
.git/logs/ directory directly instead.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
If open_packed_git failed it may have been because the packfile
actually exists and is readable, but some sort of verification
did not pass. In this case open_packed_git left pack_fd filled
in, as the file descriptor is valid. We don't want to leak the
file descriptor, nor do we want to allow someone in the future
to use this packed_git.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The default post-commit hook is actually empty; it is the update hook
that sends an email. This patch corrects hooks.txt to reflect that.
Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
--pretty=o is a valid abbreviation, --pretty=omfg is not
Noticed by: Nicolas Vilz
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Matthias Lederhofer identified a race condition where a Git reader
process was able to locate an object in a packed_git index, but
was then preempted while a `git repack -a -d` ran and completed.
By the time the reader was able to seek in the packfile to get the
object data, the packfile no longer existed on disk.
In this particular case the reader process did not attempt to
open the packfile before it was deleted, so it did not already
have the pack_fd field popuplated. With the packfile itself gone,
there was no way for the reader to open it and fetch the data.
I'm fixing the race condition by teaching find_pack_entry to ignore
a packed_git whose packfile is not currently open and which cannot
be opened. If none of the currently known packs can supply the
object, we will return 0 and the caller will decide the object is
not available. If this is the first attempt at finding an object,
the caller will reprepare_packed_git and try again. If it was
the second attempt, the caller will typically return NULL back,
and an error message about a missing object will be reported.
This patch does not address the situation of a reader which is
being starved out by a tight sequence of `git repack -a -d` runs.
In this particular case the reader will try twice, probably fail
both times, and declare the object in question cannot be found.
As it is highly unlikely that a real world `git repack -a -d` can
complete faster than a reader can open a packfile, so I don't think
this is a huge concern.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Because I want to reuse open_packed_git in a context where I don't
want the process to die if the packfile in question is bogus, I'm
changing its behavior to return error("...") rather than die("...")
when it detects something is wrong with the packfile it was given.
Right now we still must die out of use_pack should open_packed_git
fail, as none of use_pack's callers are prepared to handle a failure
from that function.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
After staring at the comment and the associated for loop, I
realized the comment was completely bogus. The section of
code its talking about is trying to avoid duplicate mapping
of the same packfile.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
There is little point in having the linked list insertion code
appearing in install_packed_git, and then again just 30 lines
further down in the same file.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Since it can be annoying to manually cleanup 40 tracking branches
which were removed by the remote system, 'git remote prune <n>'
can now be used to delete any tracking branches under <n> which
are no longer available on the remote system.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
I want to reuse the stale branch detection to implement a new
'git remote prune' subcommand. Easiest way to do that is to use
the same logic that 'git remote show' uses to determine the stale
tracking branches, then delete those.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This mainly quiets down warnings when running git svn log.
Signed-off-by: Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This is shorter than HEAD@{...} and being nameless it has no semantic
issues.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
The work in progress to enable separate reflog for HEAD will make it
independent from reflog of any branch HEAD might be pointing to. In
the mean time disallow HEAD@{...} until that work is completed. Otherwise
people might get used to the current behavior which makes HEAD@{...} an
alias for <current_branch>@{...} which won't be the case later.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Converts one use of git-checkout in git-bisect not to say "switching
to branch". It looks like all the other cases it is friendlier to
give notice to the end user.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Those new messages are certainly nice, but there might be cases where
they are simply unwelcome, like when git-commit is used within scripts.
Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This updates "git-checkout" to report which branch you are
switching to. Especially for people who do not use __git_ps1
from contrib/completion/git-completion.bash this would give a
friendlier feedback of what is going on, and should make the
reminder message much less scary.
Here is a sample session (the prompt tells which branch I am on).
* I have some local modification and realize that the change deserves
to be on its own new topic branch.
[git.git (master)]$ git diff --stat
git-checkout.sh | 10 ++++++++--
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
* So I switch to a new branch. I get a listing of local modifications
and assuring "Switched to a new branch" message.
[git.git (master)]$ git checkout -b jc/checkout
M git-checkout.sh
Switched to a new branch "jc/checkout"
* If I switch back to "master", I get essentially the same.
[git.git (jc/checkout)]$ git checkout master
M git-checkout.sh
Switched to branch "master"
* Detaching head would say which commit I am at and reminds me that
I am not on any branch (not that I would detach my HEAD while keeping
precious local changes around in any real-world workflow -- this is
just a sample session).
[git.git (master)]$ git checkout master^
M git-checkout.sh
Note: you are not on any branch and are at commit "master^"
If you want to create a new branch from this checkout, you may do so
(now or later) by using -b with the checkout command again. Example:
git checkout -b <new_branch_name>
* Coming back to an attached state can lose the detached HEAD, so
I get warned and stopped.
[git.git]$ git checkout master
You are not on any branch and switching to branch 'master'
may lose your changes. At this point, you can do one of two things:
(1) Decide it is Ok and say 'git checkout -f master';
(2) Start a new branch from the current commit, by saying
'git checkout -b <branch-name>'.
Leaving your HEAD detached; not switching to branch 'master'.
* Moving around while my HEAD is detached is Ok. I still get the list
of local modifications.
[git.git]$ git checkout master^0
M git-checkout.sh
* The previous step that switched to the tip commit is an obscure but
useful trick. My HEAD is still detached but now it is pointed at by
an existing ref, so I can come back safely.
[git.git]$ git checkout master
M git-checkout.sh
Switched to branch "master"
* And we are back on the "master" branch.
[git.git (master)]$ exit
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
It does not seem to need it either and gives an error on FC5 I use
at kernel.org to cut documentation tarballs, so remove it in the
meantime.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
This is in the hope of giving JBF's user-manual wider exposure.
I am not very happy with trailing whitespaces in the new
document, but let's not worry too much about the formatting
issues for now, but concentrate more on the structure and the
contents.
The last test in t9200 wants to see if executable bit is
retained, which has no chance of succeeding on a filesystem that
does not handle executable bit correctly.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
For the purpose of this test we do not really care if the paths
are in latin-1, but people on Cygwin seem to be having problem
on foreign-looking pathnames that do not play well with their
locale.
Let's try to re-code them in UTF-8 and see who screams,
thanks, or reports no-improvements.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
If the index wasn't clean, git-rebase would simply show the output from
git-diff-index with no further comment to the user.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Shawn O. Pearce