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`
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
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
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.
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
like this:
------------------------------------------------
-$ git repo-config remote.linus.url http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
+$ 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.
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?
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