Date: Sat Dec 2 22:22:25 2006 -0800
[XFRM]: Fix aevent structuring to be more complete.
-
+
aevents can not uniquely identify an SA. We break the ABI with this
patch, but consensus is that since it is not yet utilized by any
(known) application then it is fine (better do it now than later).
-
+
Signed-off-by: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@cyberus.ca>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
--- a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_sync.txt
+++ b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_sync.txt
@@ -47,10 +47,13 @@ aevent_id structure looks like:
-
+
struct xfrm_aevent_id {
struct xfrm_usersa_id sa_id;
+ xfrm_address_t saddr;
Git is best thought of as a tool for storing the history of a
collection of files. It does this by storing compressed snapshots of
-the contents of a file heirarchy, together with "commits" which show
+the contents of a file hierarchy, together with "commits" which show
the relationships between these snapshots.
Git provides extremely flexible and fast tools for exploring the
-------------------------------------------------
will use HEAD to produce a tar archive in which each filename is
-preceded by "prefix/".
+preceded by "project/".
If you're releasing a new version of a software project, you may want
to simultaneously make a changelog to include in the release
-------------------------------------------------
As a special shortcut,
-
+
-------------------------------------------------
$ git commit -a
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
$ git diff --cached # difference between HEAD and the index; what
- # would be commited if you ran "commit" now.
+ # would be committed if you ran "commit" now.
$ git diff # difference between the index file and your
# working directory; changes that would not
# be included if you ran "commit" now.
++>>>>>>> 77976da35a11db4580b80ae27e8d65caf5208086:file.txt
-------------------------------------------------
-Recall that the commit which will be commited after we resolve this
+Recall that the commit which will be committed after we resolve this
conflict will have two parents instead of the usual one: one parent
will be HEAD, the tip of the current branch; the other will be the
tip of the other branch, which is stored temporarily in MERGE_HEAD.
$ git reset --hard HEAD
-------------------------------------------------
-Or, if you've already commited the merge that you want to throw away,
+Or, if you've already committed the merge that you want to throw away,
-------------------------------------------------
$ git reset --hard ORIG_HEAD
-------------------------------------------------
Dangling objects are not a problem. At worst they may take up a little
-extra disk space. They can sometimes provide a last-resort method of
-recovery lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details. However, if
-you want, you may remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune
+extra disk space. They can sometimes provide a last-resort method for
+recovering lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details. However, if
+you wish, you can remove them with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune
option to gitlink:git-gc[1]:
-------------------------------------------------
Fortunately, git also keeps a log, called a "reflog", of all the
previous values of each branch. So in this case you can still find the
-old history using, for example,
+old history using, for example,
-------------------------------------------------
$ git log master@{1}
reference pointing to it, for example, a new branch:
------------------------------------------------
-$ git branch recovered-branch 7281251ddd
+$ git branch recovered-branch 7281251ddd
------------------------------------------------
Other types of dangling objects (blobs and trees) are also possible, and
If you and the maintainer both have accounts on the same machine, then
you can just pull changes from each other's repositories directly;
-commands that accepts repository URLs as arguments will also accept a
+commands that accept repository URLs as arguments will also accept a
local directory name:
-------------------------------------------------
$ git pull /path/to/other/repository
-------------------------------------------------
+or an ssh url:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git clone ssh://yourhost/~you/repository
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+For projects with few developers, or for synchronizing a few private
+repositories, this may be all you need.
+
However, the more common way to do this is to maintain a separate public
repository (usually on a different host) for others to pull changes
from. This is usually more convenient, and allows you to cleanly
you push
your personal repo ------------------> your public repo
- ^ |
+ ^ |
| |
| you pull | they pull
| |
| they push V
their public repo <------------------- their repo
+We explain how to do this in the following sections.
+
[[setting-up-a-public-repository]]
Setting up a public repository
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
$ git push ssh://yourserver.com/~you/proj.git +master
-------------------------------------------------
+Note that the target of a "push" is normally a
+<<def_bare_repository,bare>> repository. You can also push to a
+repository that has a checked-out working tree, but the working tree
+will not be updated by the push. This may lead to unexpected results if
+the branch you push to is the currently checked-out branch!
+
As with git-fetch, you may also set up configuration options to
save typing; so, for example, after
\ \
a--b--c--m <-- mywork
................................................
-
+
However, if you prefer to keep the history in mywork a simple series of
commits without any merges, you may instead choose to use
gitlink:git-rebase[1]:
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.
+per project", even if git itself does not enforce that.
A <<def_tag_object,"tag" object>> symbolically identifies and can be
used to sign other objects. It contains the identifier and type of
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>.
+forms a sequence of <ascii type without space>
{plus} <space> {plus} <ascii decimal
+size> {plus} <byte\0> {plus} <binary object data>.
The structured objects can further have their structure and
connectivity to other objects verified. This is generally done with
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.
+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.
+At the same time, the index is 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.
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:
+main combinations:
[[working-directory-to-index]]
working directory -> index
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
+Anyway, once you are sure that you're not interested in any dangling
state, you can just prune all unreachable objects:
------------------------------------------------
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
-on what it found, git-fsck itself is never "dangerous" to run.
-Running it while somebody is actually changing the repository can cause
-confusing and scary messages, but it won't actually do anything bad. In
-contrast, running "git prune" while somebody is actively changing the
+(The same is true of "git-fsck" itself, btw - but since
+git-fsck never actually *changes* the repository, it just reports
+on what it found, git-fsck itself is never "dangerous" to run.
+Running it while somebody is actually changing the repository can cause
+confusing and scary messages, but it won't actually do anything bad. In
+contrast, running "git prune" while somebody is actively changing the
repository is a *BAD* idea).
[[birdview-on-the-source-code]]