- "goddamn idiotic truckload of sh*t": when it breaks
This is a stupid (but extremely fast) directory content manager. It
-doesn't do a whole lot, but what it _does_ do is track directory
+doesn't do a whole lot, but what it 'does' do is track directory
contents efficiently.
There are two object abstractions: the "object database", and the
All objects have a statically determined "type" aka "tag", which is
determined at object creation time, and which identifies the format of
-the object (i.e. how it is used, and how it can refer to other objects).
-There are currently three different object types: "blob", "tree" and
-"commit".
+the object (i.e. how it is used, and how it can refer to other
+objects). There are currently four different object types: "blob",
+"tree", "commit" and "tag".
-A "blob" object cannot refer to any other object, and is, like the tag
+A "blob" object cannot refer to any other object, and is, like the type
implies, a pure storage object containing some user data. It is used to
actually store the file data, i.e. a blob object is associated with some
particular version of some file.
directory structure. In addition, a tree object can refer to other tree
objects, thus creating a directory hierarchy.
-Finally, a "commit" object ties such directory hierarchies together into
+A "commit" object ties such directory hierarchies together into
a DAG of revisions - each "commit" is associated with exactly one tree
(the directory hierarchy at the time of the commit). In addition, a
"commit" refers to one or more "parent" commit objects that describe the
objects. It contains the identifier and type of another object, a
symbolic name (of course!) and, optionally, a signature.
-Regardless of object type, all objects are share the following
-characteristics: they are all in deflated with zlib, and have a header
-that not only specifies their tag, but also size information about the
-data in the object. It's worth noting that the SHA1 hash that is used
-to name the object is the hash of the original data (historical note:
-in the dawn of the age of git this was the sha1 of the _compressed_
-object)
+Regardless of object type, all objects share the following
+characteristics: they are all deflated with zlib, and have a header
+that not only specifies their type, but also provides size information
+about the data in the object. It's worth noting that the SHA1 hash
+that is used to name the object is the hash of the original data
+plus this header, so `sha1sum` 'file' does not match the object name
+for 'file'.
+(Historical note: in the dawn of the age of git the hash
+was the sha1 of the 'compressed' object.)
As a result, the general consistency of an object can always be tested
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 t
ag without space> + <space> + <ascii decimal
+forms a sequence of <ascii t
ype without space> + <space> + <ascii decimal
size> + <byte\0> + <binary object data>.
The structured objects can further have their structure and
connectivity to other objects verified. This is generally done with
-the "fsck-cache" program, which generates a full dependency graph of
-all objects, and verifies their internal consistency (in addition to
-just verifying their superficial consistency through the hash).
+the `git-fsck-objects` program, which generates a full dependency graph
+of all objects, and verifies their internal consistency (in addition
+to just verifying their superficial consistency through the hash).
The object types in some more detail:
~~~~~~~~~~~
A "blob" object is nothing but a binary blob of data, and doesn't
refer to anything else. There is no signature or any other
-verification of the data, so while the object is consistent (it _is_
+verification of the data, so while the object is consistent (it 'is'
indexed by its sha1 hash, so the data itself is certainly correct), it
has absolutely no other attributes. No name associations, no
permissions. It is purely a blob of data (i.e. normally "file
In particular, since the blob is entirely defined by its data, if two
files in a directory tree (or in multiple different versions of the
repository) have the same contents, they will share the same blob
-object. The object is totally independent of it's location in the
+object. The object is totally independent of its location in the
directory tree, and renaming a file does not change the object that
file is associated with in any way.
+A blob is typically created when gitlink:git-update-index[1]
+is run, and its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1].
+
Tree Object
~~~~~~~~~~~
The next hierarchical object type is the "tree" object. A tree object
So you can trust the contents of a tree to be valid, the same way you
can trust the contents of a blob, but you don't know where those
-contents _came_ from.
+contents 'came' from.
Side note on trees: since a "tree" object is a sorted list of
"filename+content", you can create a diff between two trees without
noticing that the blob stayed the same. However, renames with data
changes need a smarter "diff" implementation.
+A tree is created with gitlink:git-write-tree[1] and
+its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-ls-tree[1].
+Two trees can be compared with gitlink:git-diff-tree[1].
-Changeset Object
-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-The "changeset" object is an object that introduces the notion of
+Commit Object
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+The "commit" object is an object that introduces the notion of
history into the picture. In contrast to the other objects, it
doesn't just describe the physical state of a tree, it describes how
we got there, and why.
-A "changeset" is defined by the tree-object that it results in, the
-parent changesets (zero, one or more) that led up to that point, and a
-comment on what happened. Again, a changeset is not trusted per se:
+A "commit" is defined by the tree-object that it results in, the
+parent commits (zero, one or more) that led up to that point, and a
+comment on what happened. Again, a commit is not trusted per se:
the contents are well-defined and "safe" due to the cryptographically
strong signatures at all levels, but there is no reason to believe
that the tree is "good" or that the merge information makes sense.
The parents do not have to actually have any relationship with the
result, for example.
-Note on changesets: unlike real SCM's, changesets do not contain
+Note on commits: unlike real SCM's, commits do not contain
rename information or file mode change information. All of that is
implicit in the trees involved (the result tree, and the result trees
of the parents), and describing that makes no sense in this idiotic
file manager.
-Trust Object
-~~~~~~~~~~~~
-The notion of "trust" is really outside the scope of "git", but it's
-worth noting a few things. First off, since everything is hashed with
-SHA1, you _can_ trust that an object is intact and has not been messed
-with by external sources. So the name of an object uniquely
-identifies a known state - just not a state that you may want to
-trust.
+A commit is created with gitlink:git-commit-tree[1] and
+its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1].
+
+Trust
+~~~~~
+An aside on the notion of "trust". Trust is really outside the scope
+of "git", but it's worth noting a few things. First off, since
+everything is hashed with SHA1, you 'can' trust that an object is
+intact and has not been messed with by external sources. So the name
+of an object uniquely identifies a known state - just not a state that
+you may want to trust.
-Furthermore, since the SHA1 signature of a changeset refers to the
+Furthermore, since the SHA1 signature of a commit refers to the
SHA1 signatures of the tree it is associated with and the signatures
-of the parent, a single named changeset specifies uniquely a whole set
+of the parent, a single named commit specifies uniquely a whole set
of history, with full contents. You can't later fake any step of the
-way once you have the name of a changeset.
+way once you have the name of a commit.
So to introduce some real trust in the system, the only thing you need
-to do is to digitally sign just _one_ special note, which includes the
-name of a top-level changeset. Your digital signature shows others
-that you trust that changeset, and the immutability of the history of
-changesets tells others that they can trust the whole history.
+to do is to digitally sign just 'one' special note, which includes the
+name of a top-level commit. Your digital signature shows others
+that you trust that commit, and the immutability of the history of
+commits tells others that they can trust the whole history.
In other words, you can easily validate a whole archive by just
sending out a single email that tells the people the name (SHA1 hash)
-of the top changeset, and digitally sign that email using something
+of the top commit, and digitally sign that email using something
like GPG/PGP.
-In particular, you can also have a separate archive of "trust points"
-or tags, which document your (and other peoples) trust. You may, of
-course, archive these "certificates of trust" using "git" itself, but
-it's not something "git" does for you.
+To assist in this, git also provides the tag object...
-Another way of saying the last point: "git" itself only handles
-content integrity, the trust has to come from outside.
+Tag Object
+~~~~~~~~~~
+Git provides the "tag" object to simplify creating, managing and
+exchanging symbolic and signed tokens. The "tag" object at its
+simplest simply symbolically identifies another object by containing
+the sha1, type and symbolic name.
+However it can optionally contain additional signature information
+(which git doesn't care about as long as there's less than 8k of
+it). This can then be verified externally to git.
+Note that despite the tag features, "git" itself only handles content
+integrity; the trust framework (and signature provision and
+verification) has to come from outside.
+
+A tag is created with gitlink:git-mktag[1],
+its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1],
+and the signature can be verified by
+gitlink:git-verify-tag[1].
The "index" aka "Current Directory Cache"
In particular, the index certainly does not need to be consistent with
the current directory contents (in fact, most operations will depend on
-different ways to make the index _not_ be consistent with the directory
+different ways to make the index 'not' be consistent with the directory
hierarchy), but it has three very important attributes:
'(a) it can re-generate the full state it caches (not just the
haven't lost any information as long as you have the name of the tree
that it described.
-At the same time, the directory index is at the same time also the
+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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You update the index with information from the working directory with
-the "update-cache" command. You generally update the index
-information by just specifying the filename you want to update, like
-so:
+the gitlink:git-update-index[1] command. You
+generally update the index information by just specifying the filename
+you want to update, like so:
- update-cache filename
+ git-update-index filename
but to avoid common mistakes with filename globbing etc, the command
will not normally add totally new entries or remove old entries,
i.e. it will normally just update existing cache entries.
To tell git that yes, you really do realize that certain files no
-longer exist in the archive, or that new files should be added, you
-should use the "--remove" and "--add" flags respectively.
+longer exist, or that new files should be added, you
+should use the `--remove` and `--add` flags respectively.
-NOTE! A "--remove" flag does _not_ mean that subsequent filenames will
+NOTE! A `--remove` flag does 'not' mean that subsequent filenames will
necessarily be removed: if the files still exist in your directory
structure, the index will be updated with their new status, not
-removed. The only thing "--remove" means is that update-cache will be
+removed. The only thing `--remove` means is that update-cache will be
considering a removed file to be a valid thing, and if the file really
does not exist any more, it will update the index accordingly.
-As a special case, you can also do "update-cache --refresh", which
+As a special case, you can also do `git-update-index --refresh`, which
will refresh the "stat" information of each index to match the current
-stat information. It will _not_ update the object status itself, and
+stat information. It will 'not' update the object status itself, and
it will only update the fields that are used to quickly test whether
an object still matches its old backing store object.
You write your current index file to a "tree" object with the program
- write-tree
+ git-write-tree
that doesn't come with any options - it will just write out the
current index into the set of tree objects that describe that state,
unsaved state that you might want to restore later!) your current
index. Normal operation is just
- read-tree <sha1 of tree>
+ git-read-tree <sha1 of tree>
and your index file will now be equivalent to the tree that you saved
-earlier. However, that is only your _index_ file: your working
+earlier. However, that is only your 'index' file: your working
directory contents have not been modified.
4) index -> working directory
files. This is not a very common operation, since normally you'd just
keep your files updated, and rather than write to your working
directory, you'd tell the index files about the changes in your
-working directory (i.e. "update-cache").
+working directory (i.e. `git-update-index`).
However, if you decide to jump to a new version, or check out somebody
else's version, or just restore a previous tree, you'd populate your
index file with read-tree, and then you need to check out the result
with
- checkout-cache filename
+ git-checkout-index filename
-or, if you want to check out all of the index, use "-a".
+or, if you want to check out all of the index, use `-a`.
-NOTE! checkout-cache normally refuses to overwrite old files, so if
-you have an old version of the tree already checked out, you will need
-to use the "-f" flag (_before_ the "-a" flag or the filename) to
-_force_ the checkout.
+NOTE! git-checkout-index normally refuses to overwrite old files, so
+if you have an old version of the tree already checked out, you will
+need to use the "-f" flag ('before' the "-a" flag or the filename) to
+'force' the checkout.
Finally, there are a few odds and ends which are not purely moving
5) Tying it all together
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-
-To commit a tree you have instantiated with "write-tree", you'd create
-a "commit" object that refers to that tree and the history behind it -
-most notably the "parent" commits that preceded it in history.
+To commit a tree you have instantiated with "git-write-tree", you'd
+create a "commit" object that refers to that tree and the history
+behind it - most notably the "parent" commits that preceded it in
+history.
Normally a "commit" has one parent: the previous state of the tree
before a certain change was made. However, sometimes it can have two
You create a commit object by giving it the tree that describes the
state at the time of the commit, and a list of parents:
-
commit-tree <tree> -p <parent> [-p <parent2> ..]
+
git-commit-tree <tree> -p <parent> [-p <parent2> ..]
and then giving the reason for the commit on stdin (either through
redirection from a pipe or file, or by just typing it at the tty).
-commit-tree will return the name of the object that represents that
-commit, and you should save it away for later use. Normally, you'd
-commit a new "HEAD" state, and while git doesn't care where you save
-the note about that state, in practice we tend to just write the
-result to the file ".git/HEAD", so that we can always see what the
-last committed state was.
+git-commit-tree will return the name of the object that represents
+that commit, and you should save it away for later use. Normally,
+you'd commit a new `HEAD` state, and while git doesn't care where you
+save the note about that state, in practice we tend to just write the
+result to the file pointed at by `.git/HEAD`, so that we can always see
+what the last committed state was.
+
+Here is an ASCII art by Jon Loeliger that illustrates how
+various pieces fit together.
+
+------------
+
+ commit-tree
+ commit obj
+ +----+
+ | |
+ | |
+ V V
+ +-----------+
+ | Object DB |
+ | Backing |
+ | Store |
+ +-----------+
+ ^
+ write-tree | |
+ tree obj | |
+ | | read-tree
+ | | tree obj
+ V
+ +-----------+
+ | Index |
+ | "cache" |
+ +-----------+
+ update-index ^
+ blob obj | |
+ | |
+ checkout-index -u | | checkout-index
+ stat | | blob obj
+ V
+ +-----------+
+ | Working |
+ | Directory |
+ +-----------+
+
+------------
+
6) Examining the data
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You can examine the data represented in the object database and the
index with various helper tools. For every object, you can use
-"cat-file" to examine details about the object:
+gitlink:git-cat-file[1] to examine details about the
+object:
- cat-file -t <objectname>
+ git-cat-file -t <objectname>
shows the type of the object, and once you have the type (which is
usually implicit in where you find the object), you can use
- cat-file blob|tree|commit <objectname>
+ git-cat-file blob|tree|commit|tag <objectname>
to show its contents. NOTE! Trees have binary content, and as a result
-there is a special helper for showing that content, called "ls-tree",
-which turns the binary content into a more easily readable form.
+there is a special helper for showing that content, called
+`git-ls-tree`, which turns the binary content into a more easily
+readable form.
It's especially instructive to look at "commit" objects, since those
tend to be small and fairly self-explanatory. In particular, if you
-follow the convention of having the top commit name in ".git/HEAD",
+follow the convention of having the top commit name in `.git/HEAD`,
you can do
- cat-file commit $(cat .git/HEAD)
+ git-cat-file commit HEAD
to see what the top commit was.
To get the "base" for the merge, you first look up the common parent
of two commits with
- merge-base <commit1> <commit2>
+ git-merge-base <commit1> <commit2>
which will return you the commit they are both based on. You should
now look up the "tree" objects of those commits, which you can easily
do with (for example)
- cat-file commit <commitname> | head -1
+ git-cat-file commit <commitname> | head -1
since the tree object information is always the first line in a commit
object.
Once you know the three trees you are going to merge (the one
"original" tree, aka the common case, and the two "result" trees, aka
the branches you want to merge), you do a "merge" read into the
-index. This will throw away your old index contents, so you should
+index. This will complain if it has to throw away your old index contents, so you should
make sure that you've committed those - in fact you would normally
always do a merge against your last commit (which should thus match
what you have in your current index anyway).
To do the merge, do
- read-tree -m <origtree> <target1tree> <target2tree>
+ git-read-tree -m -u <origtree> <yourtree> <targettree>
which will do all trivial merge operations for you directly in the
-index file, and you can just write the result out with "write-tree".
+index file, and you can just write the result out with
+`git-write-tree`.
-NOTE! Because the merge is done in the index file, and not in your
-working directory, your working directory will no longer match your
-index. You can use "checkout-cache -f -a" to make the effect of the
-merge be seen in your working directory.
+Historical note. We did not have `-u` facility when this
+section was first written, so we used to warn that
+the merge is done in the index file, not in your
+working tree, and your working tree will not match your
+index after this step.
+This is no longer true. The above command, thanks to `-u`
+option, updates your working tree with the merge results for
+paths that have been trivially merged.
-NOTE2! Sadly, many merges aren't trivial. If there are files that have
+
+8) Merging multiple trees, continued
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Sadly, many merges aren't trivial. If there are files that have
been added.moved or removed, or if both branches have modified the
same file, you will be left with an index tree that contains "merge
-entries" in it. Such an index tree can _NOT_ be written out to a tree
+entries" in it. Such an index tree can 'NOT' be written out to a tree
object, and you will have to resolve any such merge clashes using
other tools before you can write out the result.
-
-[ fixme: talk about resolving merges here ]
+You can examine such index state with `git-ls-files --unmerged`
+command. An example:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git-read-tree -m $orig HEAD $target
+$ git-ls-files --unmerged
+100644 263414f423d0e4d70dae8fe53fa34614ff3e2860 1 hello.c
+100644 06fa6a24256dc7e560efa5687fa84b51f0263c3a 2 hello.c
+100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3 hello.c
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Each line of the `git-ls-files --unmerged` output begins with
+the blob mode bits, blob SHA1, 'stage number', and the
+filename. The 'stage number' is git's way to say which tree it
+came from: stage 1 corresponds to `$orig` tree, stage 2 `HEAD`
+tree, and stage3 `$target` tree.
+
+Earlier we said that trivial merges are done inside
+`git-read-tree -m`. For example, if the file did not change
+from `$orig` to `HEAD` nor `$target`, or if the file changed
+from `$orig` to `HEAD` and `$orig` to `$target` the same way,
+obviously the final outcome is what is in `HEAD`. What the
+above example shows is that file `hello.c` was changed from
+`$orig` to `HEAD` and `$orig` to `$target` in a different way.
+You could resolve this by running your favorite 3-way merge
+program, e.g. `diff3` or `merge`, on the blob objects from
+these three stages yourself, like this:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git-cat-file blob 263414f... >hello.c~1
+$ git-cat-file blob 06fa6a2... >hello.c~2
+$ git-cat-file blob cc44c73... >hello.c~3
+$ merge hello.c~2 hello.c~1 hello.c~3
+------------------------------------------------
+
+This would leave the merge result in `hello.c~2` file, along
+with conflict markers if there are conflicts. After verifying
+the merge result makes sense, you can tell git what the final
+merge result for this file is by:
+
+ mv -f hello.c~2 hello.c
+ git-update-index hello.c
+
+When a path is in unmerged state, running `git-update-index` for
+that path tells git to mark the path resolved.
+
+The above is the description of a git merge at the lowest level,
+to help you understand what conceptually happens under the hood.
+In practice, nobody, not even git itself, uses three `git-cat-file`
+for this. There is `git-merge-index` program that extracts the
+stages to temporary files and calls a "merge" script on it:
+
+ git-merge-index git-merge-one-file hello.c
+
+and that is what higher level `git resolve` is implemented with.