-------------------------------------------------
$ git show :1:file.txt # the file in a common ancestor of both branches
-$ git show :2:file.txt # the version from HEAD, but including any
- # nonconflicting changes from MERGE_HEAD
-$ git show :3:file.txt # the version from MERGE_HEAD, but including any
- # nonconflicting changes from HEAD.
+$ git show :2:file.txt # the version from HEAD.
+$ git show :3:file.txt # the version from MERGE_HEAD.
-------------------------------------------------
-Since the stage 2 and stage 3 versions have already been updated with
-nonconflicting changes, the only remaining differences between them are
-the important ones; thus linkgit:git-diff[1] can use the information in
-the index to show only those conflicts.
+When you ask linkgit:git-diff[1] to show the conflicts, it runs a
+three-way diff between the conflicted merge results in the work tree with
+stages 2 and 3 to show only hunks whose contents come from both sides,
+mixed (in other words, when a hunk's merge results come only from stage 2,
+that part is not conflicting and is not shown. Same for stage 3).
The diff above shows the differences between the working-tree version of
file.txt and the stage 2 and stage 3 versions. So instead of preceding
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 for
-recovering lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details. However, if
-you wish, you can remove them with linkgit:git-prune[1] or the `--prune`
-option to linkgit:git-gc[1]:
-
--------------------------------------------------
-$ git gc --prune
--------------------------------------------------
-
-This may be time-consuming. Unlike most other git operations (including
-git-gc when run without any options), it is not safe to prune while
-other git operations are in progress in the same repository.
-
-If linkgit:git-fsck[1] complains about sha1 mismatches or missing
-objects, you may have a much more serious problem; your best option is
-probably restoring from backups. See
-<<recovering-from-repository-corruption>> for a detailed discussion.
+recovering lost work--see <<dangling-objects>> for details.
[[recovering-lost-changes]]
Recovering lost changes
(For an explanation of the last two lines, see
linkgit:git-update-server-info[1], and the documentation
-link:hooks.html[Hooks used by git].)
+linkgit:githooks[5][Hooks used by git].)
Advertise the URL of proj.git. Anybody else should then be able to
clone or pull from that URL, for example with a command line like:
solution is to retry the push after first updating your work by either a
pull or a fetch followed by a rebase; see the
<<setting-up-a-shared-repository,next section>> and
-link:cvs-migration.html[git for CVS users] for more.
+linkgit:gitcvs-migration[7][git for CVS users] for more.
[[setting-up-a-shared-repository]]
Setting up a shared repository
Another way to collaborate is by using a model similar to that
commonly used in CVS, where several developers with special rights
all push to and pull from a single shared repository. See
-link:cvs-migration.html[git for CVS users] for instructions on how to
+linkgit:gitcvs-migration[7][git for CVS users] for instructions on how to
set this up.
However, while there is nothing wrong with git's support for shared
If you are interested in more details of the revision walking process,
just have a look at the first implementation of `cmd_log()`; call
-`git-show v1.3.0~155^2~4` and scroll down to that function (note that you
+`git-show v1.3.0{tilde}155^2{tilde}4` and scroll down to that function (note that you
no longer need to call `setup_pager()` directly).
Nowadays, `git log` is a builtin, which means that it is _contained_ in the
itself!
[[glossary]]
-include::glossary.txt[]
+GIT Glossary
+============
+
+include::glossary-content.txt[]
[[git-quick-start]]
Appendix A: Git Quick Reference