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

[PATCH] Docs - asciidoc changes

Browse Source 
Whitespace and asciidoc formatting changes only in preparation for
content changes.

Signed-off-by: David Greaves <david@dgreaves.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
This commit is contained in:
David Greaves 2005-05-22 18:44:16 +01:00 committed by Linus Torvalds
parent b2bf34d6c5
commit 8ac866a869
1 changed files with 271 additions and 269 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

540
README
View File

@ -1,9 +1,8 @@
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GIT - the stupid content tracker
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
"git" can mean anything, depending on your mood.
- random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not
@ -22,16 +21,13 @@ contents efficiently.
There are two object abstractions: the "object database", and the
"current directory cache" aka "index".
The Object Database (GIT_OBJECT_DIRECTORY)
The Object Database
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The object database is literally just a content-addressable collection
of objects. All objects are named by their content, which is
approximated by the SHA1 hash of the object itself. Objects may refer
to other objects (by referencing their SHA1 hash), and so you can build
up a hierarchy of objects.
to other objects (by referencing their SHA1 hash), and so you can
build up a hierarchy of objects.
All objects have a statically determined "type" aka "tag", which is
determined at object creation time, and which identifies the format of
@ -62,12 +58,17 @@ has two or more separate roots as its ultimate parents, that's probably
just going to confuse people. So aim for the notion of "one root object
per project", even if git itself does not enforce that.
A "tag" object symbolically identifies and can be used to sign other
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 always the hash of this _compressed_ object, not
the original data.
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)
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
@ -76,157 +77,162 @@ file and (b) the object successfully inflates to a stream of bytes that
forms a sequence of <ascii tag 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 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 object types in some more detail:
BLOB: 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_ 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 contents").
Blob Object
~~~~~~~~~~~
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_
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
contents").
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 directory tree, and renaming a file does
not change the object that file is associated with in any way.
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
directory tree, and renaming a file does not change the object that
file is associated with in any way.
TREE: The next hierarchical object type is the "tree" object. A tree
object is a list of mode/name/blob data, sorted by name.
Alternatively, the mode data may specify a directory mode, in
which case instead of naming a blob, that name is associated
with another TREE object.
Tree Object
~~~~~~~~~~~
The next hierarchical object type is the "tree" object. A tree object
is a list of mode/name/blob data, sorted by name. Alternatively, the
mode data may specify a directory mode, in which case instead of
naming a blob, that name is associated with another TREE object.
Like the "blob" object, a tree object is uniquely determined by
the set contents, and so two separate but identical trees will
always share the exact same object. This is true at all levels,
i.e. it's true for a "leaf" tree (which does not refer to any
other trees, only blobs) as well as for a whole subdirectory.
Like the "blob" object, a tree object is uniquely determined by the
set contents, and so two separate but identical trees will always
share the exact same object. This is true at all levels, i.e. it's
true for a "leaf" tree (which does not refer to any other trees, only
blobs) as well as for a whole subdirectory.
For that reason a "tree" object is just a pure data abstraction:
it has no history, no signatures, no verification of validity,
except that since the contents are again protected by the hash
itself, we can trust that the tree is immutable and its contents
never change.
For that reason a "tree" object is just a pure data abstraction: it
has no history, no signatures, no verification of validity, except
that since the contents are again protected by the hash itself, we can
trust that the tree is immutable and its contents never change.
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.
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.
Side note on trees: since a "tree" object is a sorted list of
"filename+content", you can create a diff between two trees
without actually having to unpack two trees. Just ignore all
common parts, and your diff will look right. In other words,
you can effectively (and efficiently) tell the difference
between any two random trees by O(n) where "n" is the size of
the difference, rather than the size of the tree.
Side note on trees: since a "tree" object is a sorted list of
"filename+content", you can create a diff between two trees without
actually having to unpack two trees. Just ignore all common parts,
and your diff will look right. In other words, you can effectively
(and efficiently) tell the difference between any two random trees by
O(n) where "n" is the size of the difference, rather than the size of
the tree.
Side note 2 on trees: since the name of a "blob" depends
entirely and exclusively on its contents (i.e. there are no names
or permissions involved), you can see trivial renames or
permission changes by noticing that the blob stayed the same.
However, renames with data changes need a smarter "diff" implementation.
Side note 2 on trees: since the name of a "blob" depends entirely and
exclusively on its contents (i.e. there are no names or permissions
involved), you can see trivial renames or permission changes by
noticing that the blob stayed the same. However, renames with data
changes need a smarter "diff" implementation.
CHANGESET: The "changeset" 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: 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.
Changeset Object
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The "changeset" 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.
Note on changesets: unlike real SCM's, changesets 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.
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:
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.
TRUST: 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.
Note on changesets: unlike real SCM's, changesets 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.
Furthermore, since the SHA1 signature of a changeset 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 history, with full contents. You can't
later fake any step of the way once you have the name of a
changeset.
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.
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.
Furthermore, since the SHA1 signature of a changeset 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 history, with full contents. You can't later fake any step of the
way once you have the name of a changeset.
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 like GPG/PGP.
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.
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.
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
like GPG/PGP.
Another way of saying the last point: "git" itself only handles content
integrity, the trust has to come from outside.
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.
Another way of saying the last point: "git" itself only handles
content integrity, the trust has to come from outside.
The "index" aka "Current Directory Cache" (".git/index")
The "index" aka "Current Directory Cache"
-----------------------------------------
The index is a simple binary file, which contains an efficient
representation of a virtual directory content at some random time. It
does so by a simple array that associates a set of names, dates,
permissions and content (aka "blob") objects together. The cache is
always kept ordered by name, and names are unique (with a few very
specific rules) at any point in time, but the cache has no long-term
meaning, and can be partially updated at any time.
meaning, and can be partially updated at any time.
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
hierarchy), but it has three very important attributes:
(a) it can re-generate the full state it caches (not just the directory
structure: it contains pointers to the "blob" objects so that it
can regenerate the data too)
'(a) it can re-generate the full state it caches (not just the
directory structure: it contains pointers to the "blob" objects so
that it can regenerate the data too)'
As a special case, there is a clear and unambiguous one-way mapping
from a current directory cache to a "tree object", which can be
efficiently created from just the current directory cache without
actually looking at any other data. So a directory cache at any
one time uniquely specifies one and only one "tree" object (but
has additional data to make it easy to match up that tree object
with what has happened in the directory)
As a special case, there is a clear and unambiguous one-way mapping
from a current directory cache to a "tree object", which can be
efficiently created from just the current directory cache without
actually looking at any other data. So a directory cache at any one
time uniquely specifies one and only one "tree" object (but has
additional data to make it easy to match up that tree object with what
has happened in the directory)
(b) it has efficient methods for finding inconsistencies between that
cached state ("tree object waiting to be instantiated") and the
current state.
'(b) it has efficient methods for finding inconsistencies between that
cached state ("tree object waiting to be instantiated") and the
current state.'
(c) it can additionally efficiently represent information about merge
conflicts between different tree objects, allowing each pathname to
be associated with sufficient information about the trees involved
that you can create a three-way merge between them.
'(c) it can additionally efficiently represent information about merge
conflicts between different tree objects, allowing each pathname to be
associated with sufficient information about the trees involved that
you can create a three-way merge between them.'
Those are the three ONLY things that the directory cache does. It's a
cache, and the normal operation is to re-generate it completely from a
@ -241,220 +247,216 @@ involves a controlled modification of the index file. In particular,
the index file can have the representation of an intermediate tree that
has not yet been instantiated. So the index can be thought of as a
write-back cache, which can contain dirty information that has not yet
been written back to the backing store.
been written back to the backing store.
The Workflow
The Workflow
------------
Generally, all "git" operations work on the index file. Some operations
work _purely_ on the index file (showing the current state of the
work *purely* on the index file (showing the current state of the
index), but most operations move data to and from the index file. Either
from the database or from the working directory. Thus there are four
main combinations:
1) working directory -> index
1) working directory -> index
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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:
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:
update-cache 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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 will refresh the "stat" information of each index to match
the current 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.
As a special case, you can also do "update-cache --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
it will only update the fields that are used to quickly test whether
an object still matches its old backing store object.
2) index -> object database
2) index -> object database
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You write your current index file to a "tree" object with the
program
You write your current index file to a "tree" object with the program
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, and it will return the name of the resulting top-level
tree. You can use that tree to re-generate the index at any time
by going in the other direction:
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,
and it will return the name of the resulting top-level tree. You can
use that tree to re-generate the index at any time by going in the
other direction:
3) object database -> index
3) object database -> index
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You read a "tree" file from the object database, and use that to
populate (and overwrite - don't do this if your index contains
any unsaved state that you might want to restore later!) your
current index. Normal operation is just
You read a "tree" file from the object database, and use that to
populate (and overwrite - don't do this if your index contains any
unsaved state that you might want to restore later!) your current
index. Normal operation is just
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 directory contents have not been modified.
and your index file will now be equivalent to the tree that you saved
earlier. However, that is only your _index_ file: your working
directory contents have not been modified.
4) index -> working directory
4) index -> working directory
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You update your working directory from the index by "checking
out" 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").
You update your working directory from the index by "checking out"
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").
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
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
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! 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.
Finally, there are a few odds and ends which are not purely moving from
one representation to the other:
Finally, there are a few odds and ends which are not purely moving
from one representation to the other:
5) Tying it all together
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 "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 or more parent commits, in which case we call it a
"merge", due to the fact that such a commit brings together
("merges") two or more previous states represented by other
commits.
Normally a "commit" has one parent: the previous state of the tree
before a certain change was made. However, sometimes it can have two
or more parent commits, in which case we call it a "merge", due to the
fact that such a commit brings together ("merges") two or more
previous states represented by other commits.
In other words, while a "tree" represents a particular directory
state of a working directory, a "commit" represents that state
in "time", and explains how we got there.
In other words, while a "tree" represents a particular directory state
of a working directory, a "commit" represents that state in "time",
and explains how we got there.
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:
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> ..]
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).
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.
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.
6) Examining the data
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:
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:
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
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>
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.
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.
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", you can do
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",
you can do
cat-file commit $(cat .git/HEAD)
to see what the top commit was.
to see what the top commit was.
7) Merging multiple trees
7) Merging multiple trees
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Git helps you do a three-way merge, which you can expand to
n-way by repeating the merge procedure arbitrary times until you
finally "commit" the state. The normal situation is that you'd
only do one three-way merge (two parents), and commit it, but if
you like to, you can do multiple parents in one go.
Git helps you do a three-way merge, which you can expand to n-way by
repeating the merge procedure arbitrary times until you finally
"commit" the state. The normal situation is that you'd only do one
three-way merge (two parents), and commit it, but if you like to, you
can do multiple parents in one go.
To do a three-way merge, you need the two sets of "commit"
objects that you want to merge, use those to find the closest
common parent (a third "commit" object), and then use those
commit objects to find the state of the directory ("tree"
object) at these points.
To do a three-way merge, you need the two sets of "commit" objects
that you want to merge, use those to find the closest common parent (a
third "commit" object), and then use those commit objects to find the
state of the directory ("tree" object) at these points.
To get the "base" for the merge, you first look up the common
parent of two commits with
To get the "base" for the merge, you first look up the common parent
of two commits with
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)
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
since the tree object information is always the first line in a
commit object.
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 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
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
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>
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".
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".
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.
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.
NOTE2! 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 object, and you will have to resolve any
such merge clashes using other tools before you can write out
the result.
NOTE2! 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
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 ]
[ fixme: talk about resolving merges here ]