undef/git-commit-vandalism
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

[PATCH] Add some simple howtos, culled from the mailing list.

Browse Source 
I think these are useful, and I think putting them in a new "howto"
directory might help some users until we get to the point of splitting
up the tutorial to be easier to read.

Given the authorship, I think it's safe to put these in the repository.

Signed-off-by: Ryan Anderson <ryan@michonline.com>
This commit is contained in:
Ryan Anderson 2005-08-15 04:25:53 -04:00 committed by Junio C Hamano
parent c65a9470fb
commit 365a00a3f2
3 changed files with 288 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

47
Documentation/howto/make-dist.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 22:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>
cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: git checkout -f branch doesn't remove extra files
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Dave Jones wrote:
>
> > Git actually has a _lot_ of nifty tools. I didn't realize that people
> > didn't know about such basic stuff as "git-tar-tree" and "git-ls-files".
>
> Maybe its because things are moving so fast :) Or maybe I just wasn't
> paying attention on that day. (I even read the git changes via RSS,
> so I should have no excuse).
Well, git-tar-tree has been there since late April - it's actually one of
those really early commands. I'm pretty sure the RSS feed came later ;)
I use it all the time in doing releases, it's a lot faster than creating a
tar tree by reading the filesystem (even if you don't have to check things
out). A hidden pearl.
This is my crappy "release-script":
[torvalds@g5 ~]$ cat bin/release-script
#!/bin/sh
stable="$1"
last="$2"
new="$3"
echo "# git-tag-script v$new"
echo "git-tar-tree v$new linux-$new | gzip -9 > ../linux-$new.tar.gz"
echo "git-diff-tree -p v$stable v$new | gzip -9 > ../patch-$new.gz"
echo "git-rev-list --pretty v$new ^v$last > ../ChangeLog-$new"
echo "git-rev-list --pretty=short v$new ^v$last | git-shortlog > ../ShortLog"
echo "git-diff-tree -p v$last v$new | git-apply --stat > ../diffstat-$new"
and when I want to do a new kernel release I literally first tag it, and
then do
release-script 2.6.12 2.6.13-rc6 2.6.13-rc7
and check that things look sane, and then just cut-and-paste the commands.
Yeah, it's stupid.
Linus

78
Documentation/howto/rebase-and-edit.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:16:02 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
To: Steve French <smfrench@austin.rr.com>
cc: git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> That's correct. Same things apply: you can move a patch over, and create a
> new one with a modified comment, but basically the _old_ commit will be
> immutable.
Let me clarify.
You can entirely _drop_ old branches, so commits may be immutable, but
nothing forces you to keep them. Of course, when you drop a commit, you'll
always end up dropping all the commits that depended on it, and if you
actually got somebody else to pull that commit you can't drop it from
_their_ repository, but undoing things is not impossible.
For example, let's say that you've made a mess of things: you've committed
three commits "old->a->b->c", and you notice that "a" was broken, but you
want to save "b" and "c". What you can do is
# Create a branch "broken" that is the current code
# for reference
git branch broken
# Reset the main branch to three parents back: this
# effectively undoes the three top commits
git reset HEAD^^^
git checkout -f
# Check the result visually to make sure you know what's
# going on
gitk --all
# Re-apply the two top ones from "broken"
#
# First "parent of broken" (aka b):
git-diff-tree -p broken^ | git-apply --index
git commit --reedit=broken^
# Then "top of broken" (aka c):
git-diff-tree -p broken | git-apply --index
git commit --reedit=broken
and you've now re-applied (and possibly edited the comments) the two
commits b/c, and commit "a" is basically gone (it still exists in the
"broken" branch, of course).
Finally, check out the end result again:
# Look at the new commit history
gitk --all
to see that everything looks sensible.
And then, you can just remove the broken branch if you decide you really
don't want it:
# remove 'broken' branch
rm .git/refs/heads/broken
# Prune old objects if you're really really sure
git prune
And yeah, I'm sure there are other ways of doing this. And as usual, the
above is totally untested, and I just wrote it down in this email, so if
I've done something wrong, you'll have to figure it out on your own ;)
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

163
Documentation/howto/rebase-from-internal-branch.txt Normal file
View File

@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
To: git@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
Subject: Re: sending changesets from the middle of a git tree
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:37:39 -0700
Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> writes:
> Dear diary, on Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 09:57:13AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> told me that...
>> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
>>
>> > Junio, maybe you want to talk about how you move patches from your "pu"
>> > branch to the real branches.
>>
> Actually, wouldn't this be also precisely for what StGIT is intended to?
Exactly my feeling. I was sort of waiting for Catalin to speak
up. With its basing philosophical ancestry on quilt, this is
the kind of task StGIT is designed to do.
I just have done a simpler one, this time using only the core
GIT tools.
I had a handful commits that were ahead of master in pu, and I
wanted to add some documentation bypassing my usual habit of
placing new things in pu first. At the beginning, the commit
ancestry graph looked like this:
*"pu" head
master --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
So I started from master, made a bunch of edits, and committed:
$ git checkout master
$ cd Documentation; ed git.txt git-apply-patch-script.txt ...
$ cd ..; git add Documentation/*.txt
$ git commit -s -v
NOTE. The -v flag to commit is a handy way to make sure that
your additions are not introducing bogusly formatted lines.
After the commit, the ancestry graph would look like this:
*"pu" head
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
\
\---> master
The old master is now master^ (the first parent of the master).
The new master commit holds my documentation updates.
Now I have to deal with "pu" branch.
This is the kind of situation I used to have all the time when
Linus was the maintainer and I was a contributor, when you look
at "master" branch being the "maintainer" branch, and "pu"
branch being the "contributor" branch. Your work started at the
tip of the "maintainer" branch some time ago, you made a lot of
progress in the meantime, and now the maintainer branch has some
other commits you do not have yet. And "git rebase" was written
with the explicit purpose of helping to maintain branches like
"pu". You _could_ merge master to pu and keep going, but if you
eventually want to cherrypick and merge some but not necessarily
all changes back to the master branch, it often makes later
operations for _you_ easier if you rebase (i.e. carry forward
your changes) "pu" rather than merge. So I ran "git rebase":
$ git checkout pu
$ git rebase master pu
What this does is to pick all the commits since the current
branch (note that I now am on "pu" branch) forked from the
master branch, and forward port these changes.
master^ --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
\ *"pu" head
\---> master --> #1' --> #2' --> #3'
The diff between master^ and #1 is applied to master and
committed to create #1' commit with the commit information (log,
author and date) taken from commit #1. On top of that #2' and #3'
commits are made similarly out of #2 and #3 commits.
Old #3 is not recorded in any of the .git/refs/heads/ file
anymore, so after doing this you will have dangling commit if
you ran fsck-cache, which is normal. After testing "pu", you
can run "git prune" to get rid of those original three commits.
While I am talking about "git rebase", I should talk about how
to do cherrypicking using only the core GIT tools.
Let's go back to the earlier picture, with different labels.
You, as an individual developer, cloned upstream repository and
amde a couple of commits on top of it.
*your "master" head
upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
You would want changes #2 and #3 incorporated in the upstream,
while you feel that #1 may need further improvements. So you
prepare #2 and #3 for e-mail submission.
$ git format-patch master^^ master
This creates two files, 0001-XXXX.txt and 0002-XXXX.txt. Send
them out "To: " your project maintainer and "Cc: " your mailing
list. You could use contributed script git-send-email-script if
your host has necessary perl modules for this, but your usual
MUA would do as long as it does not corrupt whitespaces in the
patch.
Then you would wait, and you find out that the upstream picked
up your changes, along with other changes.
where *your "master" head
upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
used \
to be \--> #A --> #2' --> #3' --> #B --> #C
*upstream head
The two commits #2' and #3' in the above picture record the same
changes your e-mail submission for #2 and #3 contained, but
probably with the new sign-off line added by the upsteam
maintainer and definitely with different committer and ancestry
information, they are different objects from #2 and #3 commits.
You fetch from upstream, but not merge.
$ git fetch upstream
This leaves the updated upstream head in .git/FETCH_HEAD but
does not touch your .git/HEAD nor .git/refs/heads/master.
You run "git rebase" now.
$ git rebase FETCH_HEAD master
Earlier, I said that rebase applies all the commits from your
branch on top of the upstream head. Well, I lied. "git rebase"
is a bit smarter than that and notices that #2 and #3 need not
be applied, so it only applies #1. The commit ancestry graph
becomes something like this:
where *your old "master" head
upstream --> #1 --> #2 --> #3
used \ your new "master" head*
to be \--> #A --> #2' --> #3' --> #B --> #C --> #1'
*upstream
head
Again, "git prune" would discard the disused commits #1-#3 and
you continue on starting from the new "master" head, which is
the #1' commit.
-jc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html