-A short git tutorial
-====================
+A git core tutorial for developers
+==================================
Introduction
------------
often the best way of explaining what is going on.
In normal life, most people wouldn't use the "core" git programs
-directly, but rather script around them to make them more palatable.
+directly, but rather script around them to make them more palatable.
Understanding the core git stuff may help some people get those scripts
done, though, and it may also be instructive in helping people
understand what it is that the higher-level helper scripts are actually
-doing.
+doing.
The core git is often called "plumbing", with the prettier user
interfaces on top of it called "porcelain". You may not want to use the
out empty, and the only thing you need to do is find yourself a
subdirectory that you want to use as a working tree - either an empty
one for a totally new project, or an existing working tree that you want
-to import into git.
+to import into git.
For our first example, we're going to start a totally new repository from
scratch, with no pre-existing files, and we'll call it `git-tutorial`.
To start up, create a subdirectory for it, change into that
-subdirectory, and initialize the git infrastructure with `git-init-db`:
+subdirectory, and initialize the git infrastructure with `git-init`:
------------------------------------------------
$ mkdir git-tutorial
$ cd git-tutorial
-$ git-init-db
+$ git-init
------------------------------------------------
to which git will reply
----------------
-defaulting to local storage area
+Initialized empty Git repository in .git/
----------------
which is just git's way of saying that you haven't been doing anything
and see two files:
----------------
-.git/objects/55/7db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238
+.git/objects/55/7db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238
.git/objects/f2/4c74a2e500f5ee1332c86b94199f52b1d1d962
----------------
----------------
where the `-t` tells `git-cat-file` to tell you what the "type" of the
-object is. git will tell you that you have a "blob" object (ie just a
+object is. git will tell you that you have a "blob" object (i.e., just a
regular file), and you can see the contents with
----------------
you've only *told* git about them.
However, since git knows about them, you can now start using some of the
-most basic git commands to manipulate the files or look at their status.
+most basic git commands to manipulate the files or look at their status.
In particular, let's not even check in the two files into git yet, we'll
start off by adding another line to `hello` first:
`git-commit-tree` normally takes several arguments -- it wants to know
what the 'parent' of a commit was, but since this is the first commit
ever in this new repository, and it has no parents, we only need to pass in
-the object name of the tree. However, `git-commit-tree`
-also wants to get a commit message
-on its standard input, and it will write out the resulting object name for the
-commit to its standard output.
+the object name of the tree. However, `git-commit-tree` also wants to get a
+commit message on its standard input, and it will write out the resulting
+object name for the commit to its standard output.
And this is where we create the `.git/refs/heads/master` file
which is pointed at by `HEAD`. This file is supposed to contain
$ git-update-ref HEAD $commit
------------------------------------------------
-which will say:
-
-----------------
-Committing initial tree 8988da15d077d4829fc51d8544c097def6644dbb
-----------------
-
-just to warn you about the fact that it created a totally new commit
-that is not related to anything else. Normally you do this only *once*
-for a project ever, and all later commits will be parented on top of an
-earlier commit, and you'll never see this "Committing initial tree"
-message ever again.
+In this case this creates a totally new commit that is not related to
+anything else. Normally you do this only *once* for a project ever, and
+all later commits will be parented on top of an earlier commit.
Again, normally you'd never actually do this by hand. There is a
helpful script called `git commit` that will do all of this for you. So
Remember how we did the `git-update-index` on file `hello` and then we
changed `hello` afterward, and could compare the new state of `hello` with the
-state we saved in the index file?
+state we saved in the index file?
Further, remember how I said that `git-write-tree` writes the contents
of the *index* file to the tree, and thus what we just committed was in
between a committed *tree* and either the index file or the working
tree. In other words, `git-diff-index` wants a tree to be diffed
against, and before we did the commit, we couldn't do that, because we
-didn't have anything to diff against.
+didn't have anything to diff against.
But now we can do
----------------
(where `-p` has the same meaning as it did in `git-diff-files`), and it
-will show us the same difference, but for a totally different reason.
+will show us the same difference, but for a totally different reason.
Now we're comparing the working tree not against the index file,
but against the tree we just wrote. It just so happens that those two
are obviously the same, so we get the same result.
instead compare against just the index cache contents, and ignore the
current working tree state entirely. Since we just wrote the index
file to HEAD, doing `git-diff-index \--cached -p HEAD` should thus return
-an empty set of differences, and that's exactly what it does.
+an empty set of differences, and that's exactly what it does.
[NOTE]
================
----------------
and you will see exactly what has changed in the repository over its
-short history.
+short history.
[NOTE]
The `\--root` flag is a flag to `git-diff-tree` to tell it to
----------------
which will sign the current `HEAD` (but you can also give it another
-argument that specifies the thing to tag, ie you could have tagged the
+argument that specifies the thing to tag, i.e., you could have tagged the
current `mybranch` point by using `git tag <tagname> mybranch`).
You normally only do signed tags for major releases or things
Copying repositories
--------------------
-git repositories are normally totally self-sufficient and relocatable
+git repositories are normally totally self-sufficient and relocatable.
Unlike CVS, for example, there is no separate notion of
"repository" and "working tree". A git repository normally *is* the
working tree, with the local git information hidden in the `.git`
the working tree that it describes" may not be technically 100%
accurate, but it's a good model for all normal use.
-This has two implications:
+This has two implications:
- if you grow bored with the tutorial repository you created (or you've
made a mistake and want to start all over), you can just do simple
the checked out files or even an index file, and will *only* contain the
actual core git files. Such a repository usually doesn't even have the
`.git` subdirectory, but has all the git files directly in the
-repository.
+repository.
To create your own local live copy of such a "raw" git repository, you'd
first create your own subdirectory for the project, and then copy the
$ rsync -rL rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ .git
----------------
-followed by
+followed by
----------------
$ git-read-tree HEAD
`-a` flag means "check out all files" (if you have a stale copy or an
older version of a checked out tree you may also need to add the `-f`
flag first, to tell git-checkout-index to *force* overwriting of any old
-files).
+files).
Again, this can all be simplified with
which will end up doing all of the above for you.
You have now successfully copied somebody else's (mine) remote
-repository, and checked it out.
+repository, and checked it out.
Creating a new branch
Branches in git are really nothing more than pointers into the git
object database from within the `.git/refs/` subdirectory, and as we
already discussed, the `HEAD` branch is nothing but a symlink to one of
-these object pointers.
+these object pointers.
You can at any time create a new branch by just picking an arbitrary
point in the project history, and just writing the SHA1 name of that
object into a file under `.git/refs/heads/`. You can use any filename you
want (and indeed, subdirectories), but the convention is that the
"normal" branch is called `master`. That's just a convention, though,
-and nothing enforces it.
+and nothing enforces it.
To show that as an example, let's go back to the git-tutorial repository we
used earlier, and create a branch in it. You do that by simply just
------------
will create a new branch based at the current `HEAD` position, and switch
-to it.
+to it.
[NOTE]
================================================
$ git branch <branchname> [startingpoint]
------------
-which will simply _create_ the branch, but will not do anything further.
+which will simply _create_ the branch, but will not do anything further.
You can then later -- once you decide that you want to actually develop
on that branch -- switch to that branch with a regular `git checkout`
with the branchname as the argument.
will show you graphically both of your branches (that's what the `\--all`
means: normally it will just show you your current `HEAD`) and their
histories. You can also see exactly how they came to be from a common
-source.
+source.
Anyway, let's exit `gitk` (`^Q` or the File menu), and decide that we want
to merge the work we did on the `mybranch` branch into the `master`
file, which had no differences in the `mybranch` branch), and say:
----------------
- Trying really trivial in-index merge...
- fatal: Merge requires file-level merging
- Nope.
- ...
- Auto-merging hello
- CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in hello
+ Auto-merging hello
+ CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in hello
Automatic merge failed; fix up by hand
----------------
-which is way too verbose, but it basically tells you that it failed the
-really trivial merge ("Simple merge") and did an "Automatic merge"
-instead, but that too failed due to conflicts in `hello`.
+It tells you that it did an "Automatic merge", which
+failed due to conflicts in `hello`.
Not to worry. It left the (trivial) conflict in `hello` in the same form you
should already be well used to if you've ever used CVS, so let's just
The first two lines indicate that it is showing the two branches
and the first line of the commit log message from their
top-of-the-tree commits, you are currently on `master` branch
-(notice the asterisk `*` character), and the first column for
+(notice the asterisk `\*` character), and the first column for
the later output lines is used to show commits contained in the
`master` branch, and the second column for the `mybranch`
branch. Three commits are shown along with their log messages.
Now, let's pretend you are the one who did all the work in
`mybranch`, and the fruit of your hard work has finally been merged
to the `master` branch. Let's go back to `mybranch`, and run
-resolve to get the "upstream changes" back to your branch.
+`git merge` to get the "upstream changes" back to your branch.
------------
$ git checkout mybranch
----------------
Because your branch did not contain anything more than what are
-already merged into the `master` branch, the resolve operation did
+already merged into the `master` branch, the merge operation did
not actually do a merge. Instead, it just updated the top of
the tree of your branch to that of the `master` branch. This is
often called 'fast forward' merge.
using the object name of that commit object. Then it reads the
commit object to find out its parent commits and the associate
tree object; it repeats this process until it gets all the
-necessary objects. Because of this behaviour, they are
+necessary objects. Because of this behavior, they are
sometimes also called 'commit walkers'.
+
The 'commit walkers' are sometimes also called 'dumb
usefulness when git Native and SSH transports were introduced,
and not used by `git pull` or `git push` scripts.
-Once you fetch from the remote repository, you `resolve` that
+Once you fetch from the remote repository, you `merge` that
with your current branch.
However -- it's such a common thing to `fetch` and then
-immediately `resolve`, that it's called `git pull`, and you can
+immediately `merge`, that it's called `git pull`, and you can
simply do
----------------
keeping as many local repositories as you would like to have
branches, and merging between them with `git pull`, just like
you merge between branches. The advantage of this approach is
-that it lets you keep set of files for each `branch` checked
+that it lets you keep a set of files for each `branch` checked
out and you may find it easier to switch back and forth if you
juggle multiple lines of development simultaneously. Of
course, you will pay the price of more disk usage to hold
multiple working trees, but disk space is cheap these days.
-[NOTE]
-You could even pull from your own repository by
-giving '.' as <remote-repository> parameter to `git pull`. This
-is useful when you want to merge a local branch (or more, if you
-are making an Octopus) into the current branch.
-
It is likely that you will be pulling from the same remote
repository from time to time. As a short hand, you can store
-the remote repository URL in a file under .git/remotes/
-directory, like this:
-
-------------------------------------------------
-$ mkdir -p .git/remotes/
-$ cat >.git/remotes/linus <<\EOF
-URL: http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
-EOF
-------------------------------------------------
-
-and use the filename to `git pull` instead of the full URL.
-The URL specified in such file can even be a prefix
-of a full URL, like this:
+the remote repository URL in the local repository's config file
+like this:
------------------------------------------------
-$ cat >.git/remotes/jgarzik <<\EOF
-URL: http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/git/jgarzik/
-EOF
+$ git config remote.linus.url http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
------------------------------------------------
+and use the "linus" keyword with `git pull` instead of the full URL.
Examples.
. `git pull linus`
. `git pull linus tag v0.99.1`
-. `git pull jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git/ e100`
the above are equivalent to:
. `git pull http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ HEAD`
. `git pull http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ tag v0.99.1`
-. `git pull http://www.kernel.org/pub/.../jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git e100`
How does the merge work?
Publishing your work
--------------------
-So we can use somebody else's work from a remote repository; but
+So, we can use somebody else's work from a remote repository, but
how can *you* prepare a repository to let other people pull from
it?
-Your do your real work in your working tree that has your
+You do your real work in your working tree that has your
primary repository hanging under it as its `.git` subdirectory.
You *could* make that repository accessible remotely and ask
people to pull from it, but in practice that is not the way
------------
Then, make that directory into a git repository by running
-`git init-db`, but this time, since its name is not the usual
+`git init`, but this time, since its name is not the usual
`.git`, we do things slightly differently:
------------
-$ GIT_DIR=my-git.git git-init-db
+$ GIT_DIR=my-git.git git-init
------------
Make sure this directory is available for others you want your
propagation to other publicly visible machines:
------------
-$ git push master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git/
+$ git push master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git/
------------
Although git is a truly distributed system, it is often
convenient to organize your project with an informal hierarchy
of developers. Linux kernel development is run this way. There
-is a nice illustration (page 17, "Merges to Mainline") in Randy
-Dunlap's presentation (`http://tinyurl.com/a2jdg`).
+is a nice illustration (page 17, "Merges to Mainline") in
+link:http://tinyurl.com/a2jdg[Randy Dunlap's presentation].
It should be stressed that this hierarchy is purely *informal*.
There is nothing fundamental in git that enforces the "chain of
+
If other people are pulling from your repository over dumb
transport protocols (HTTP), you need to keep this repository
-'dumb transport friendly'. After `git init-db`,
+'dumb transport friendly'. After `git init`,
`$GIT_DIR/hooks/post-update` copied from the standard templates
would contain a call to `git-update-server-info` but the
`post-update` hook itself is disabled by default -- enable it
1. Prepare your work repository, by `git clone` the public
repository of the "project lead". The URL used for the
- initial cloning is stored in `.git/remotes/origin`.
+ initial cloning is stored in the remote.origin.url
+ configuration variable.
2. Prepare a public repository accessible to others, just like
the "project lead" person does.
1. Prepare your work repository, by `git clone` the public
repository of the "project lead" (or a "subsystem
maintainer", if you work on a subsystem). The URL used for
- the initial cloning is stored in `.git/remotes/origin`.
+ the initial cloning is stored in the remote.origin.url
+ configuration variable.
2. Do your work in your repository on 'master' branch.
3. Run `git fetch origin` from the public repository of your
upstream every once in a while. This does only the first
half of `git pull` but does not merge. The head of the
- public repository is stored in `.git/refs/heads/origin`.
+ public repository is stored in `.git/refs/remotes/origin/master`.
4. Use `git cherry origin` to see which ones of your patches
were accepted, and/or use `git rebase origin` to port your
have to worry. git supports "shared public repository" style of
cooperation you are probably more familiar with as well.
-See link:cvs-migration.txt[git for CVS users] for the details.
+See link:cvs-migration.html[git for CVS users] for the details.
Bundling your work together
---------------------------
You can make sure 'git show-branch' matches the state before
those two 'git merge' you just did. Then, instead of running
-two 'git merge' commands in a row, you would pull these two
+two 'git merge' commands in a row, you would merge these two
branch heads (this is known as 'making an Octopus'):
------------
-$ git pull . commit-fix diff-fix
+$ git merge commit-fix diff-fix
$ git show-branch
! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization.
! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection.
Note that you should not do Octopus because you can. An octopus
is a valid thing to do and often makes it easier to view the
-commit history if you are pulling more than two independent
+commit history if you are merging more than two independent
changes at the same time. However, if you have merge conflicts
with any of the branches you are merging in and need to hand
resolve, that is an indication that the development happened in