GITCORE-TUTORIAL(7)                                        GITCORE-TUTORIAL(7)



NAME
       gitcore-tutorial - A git core tutorial for developers

SYNOPSIS
       git *


DESCRIPTION
       This tutorial explains how to use the "core" git commands to set up and
       work with a git repository.


       If you just need to use git as a revision control system you may prefer
       to start with "A Tutorial Introduction to GIT" (gittutorial(7)) or the
       GIT User Manual: user-manual.html.


       However, an understanding of these low-level tools can be helpful if
       you want to understand git&#8217;s internals.


       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
       plumbing directly very often, but it can be good to know what the
       plumbing does for when the porcelain isn&#8217;t flushing.


       Back when this document was originally written, many porcelain commands
       were shell scripts. For simplicity, it still uses them as examples to
       illustrate how plumbing is fit together to form the porcelain commands.
       The source tree includes some of these scripts in contrib/examples/ for
       reference. Although these are not implemented as shell scripts anymore,
       the description of what the plumbing layer commands do is still valid.


              Note

              Deeper technical details are often marked as Notes, which you
              can skip on your first reading.



CREATING A GIT REPOSITORY
       Creating a new git repository couldn&#8217;t be easier: all git
       repositories start 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.


       For our first example, we&#8217;re going to start a totally new
       repository from scratch, with no pre-existing files, and we&#8217;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:

       $ mkdir git-tutorial
       $ cd git-tutorial
       $ git init





       to which git will reply

       Initialized empty Git repository in .git/





       which is just git&#8217;s way of saying that you haven&#8217;t been
       doing anything strange, and that it will have created a local .git
       directory setup for your new project. You will now have a .git
       directory, and you can inspect that with ls. For your new empty
       project, it should show you three entries, among other things:


       o  a file called HEAD, that has ref: refs/heads/master in it. This is
          similar to a symbolic link and points at refs/heads/master relative
          to the HEAD file.

          Don&#8217;t worry about the fact that the file that the HEAD link
          points to doesn&#8217;t even exist yet&#8201;--&#8201;you
          haven&#8217;t created the commit that will start your HEAD
          development branch yet.

       o  a subdirectory called objects, which will contain all the objects of
          your project. You should never have any real reason to look at the
          objects directly, but you might want to know that these objects are
          what contains all the real data in your repository.

       o  a subdirectory called refs, which contains references to objects.

       In particular, the refs subdirectory will contain two other
       subdirectories, named heads and tags respectively. They do exactly what
       their names imply: they contain references to any number of different
       heads of development (aka branches), and to any tags that you have
       created to name specific versions in your repository.


       One note: the special master head is the default branch, which is why
       the .git/HEAD file was created points to it even if it doesn&#8217;t
       yet exist. Basically, the HEAD link is supposed to always point to the
       branch you are working on right now, and you always start out expecting
       to work on the master branch.


       However, this is only a convention, and you can name your branches
       anything you want, and don&#8217;t have to ever even have a master
       branch. A number of the git tools will assume that .git/HEAD is valid,
       though.


              Note

              An object is identified by its 160-bit SHA1 hash, aka object
              name, and a reference to an object is always the 40-byte hex
              representation of that SHA1 name. The files in the refs
              subdirectory are expected to contain these hex references
              (usually with a final \n at the end), and you should thus expect
              to see a number of 41-byte files containing these references in
              these refs subdirectories when you actually start populating
              your tree.



              Note

              An advanced user may want to take a look at
              gitrepository-layout(5) after finishing this tutorial.



       You have now created your first git repository. Of course, since
       it&#8217;s empty, that&#8217;s not very useful, so let&#8217;s start
       populating it with data.


POPULATING A GIT REPOSITORY
       We&#8217;ll keep this simple and stupid, so we&#8217;ll start off with
       populating a few trivial files just to get a feel for it.


       Start off with just creating any random files that you want to maintain
       in your git repository. We&#8217;ll start off with a few bad examples,
       just to get a feel for how this works:

       $ echo "Hello World" >hello
       $ echo "Silly example" >example





       you have now created two files in your working tree (aka working
       directory), but to actually check in your hard work, you will have to
       go through two steps:


       o  fill in the index file (aka cache) with the information about your
          working tree state.

       o  commit that index file as an object.

       The first step is trivial: when you want to tell git about any changes
       to your working tree, you use the git update-index program. That
       program normally just takes a list of filenames you want to update, but
       to avoid trivial mistakes, it refuses to add new entries to the index
       (or remove existing ones) unless you explicitly tell it that
       you&#8217;re adding a new entry with the --add flag (or removing an
       entry with the --remove) flag.


       So to populate the index with the two files you just created, you can
       do

       $ git update-index --add hello example





       and you have now told git to track those two files.


       In fact, as you did that, if you now look into your object directory,
       you&#8217;ll notice that git will have added two new objects to the
       object database. If you did exactly the steps above, you should now be
       able to do

       $ ls .git/objects/??/*





       and see two files:

       .git/objects/55/7db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238
       .git/objects/f2/4c74a2e500f5ee1332c86b94199f52b1d1d962





       which correspond with the objects with names of 557db... and f24c7...
       respectively.


       If you want to, you can use git cat-file to look at those objects, but
       you&#8217;ll have to use the object name, not the filename of the
       object:

       $ git cat-file -t 557db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238





       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 (i.e., just
       a regular file), and you can see the contents with

       $ git cat-file blob 557db03





       which will print out "Hello World". The object 557db03 is nothing more
       than the contents of your file hello.


              Note

              Don&#8217;t confuse that object with the file hello itself. The
              object is literally just those specific contents of the file,
              and however much you later change the contents in file hello,
              the object we just looked at will never change. Objects are
              immutable.



              Note

              The second example demonstrates that you can abbreviate the
              object name to only the first several hexadecimal digits in most
              places.



       Anyway, as we mentioned previously, you normally never actually take a
       look at the objects themselves, and typing long 40-character hex names
       is not something you&#8217;d normally want to do. The above digression
       was just to show that git update-index did something magical, and
       actually saved away the contents of your files into the git object
       database.


       Updating the index did something else too: it created a .git/index
       file. This is the index that describes your current working tree, and
       something you should be very aware of. Again, you normally never worry
       about the index file itself, but you should be aware of the fact that
       you have not actually really "checked in" your files into git so far,
       you&#8217;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.


       In particular, let&#8217;s not even check in the two files into git
       yet, we&#8217;ll start off by adding another line to hello first:

       $ echo "It's a new day for git" >>hello





       and you can now, since you told git about the previous state of hello,
       ask git what has changed in the tree compared to your old index, using
       the git diff-files command:

       $ git diff-files





       Oops. That wasn&#8217;t very readable. It just spit out its own
       internal version of a diff, but that internal version really just tells
       you that it has noticed that "hello" has been modified, and that the
       old object contents it had have been replaced with something else.


       To make it readable, we can tell git diff-files to output the
       differences as a patch, using the -p flag:

       $ git diff-files -p
       diff --git a/hello b/hello
       index 557db03..263414f 100644
       --- a/hello
       +++ b/hello
       @@ -1 +1,2 @@
        Hello World
       +It's a new day for git





       i.e. the diff of the change we caused by adding another line to hello.


       In other words, git diff-files always shows us the difference between
       what is recorded in the index, and what is currently in the working
       tree. That&#8217;s very useful.


       A common shorthand for git diff-files -p is to just write git diff,
       which will do the same thing.

       $ git diff
       diff --git a/hello b/hello
       index 557db03..263414f 100644
       --- a/hello
       +++ b/hello
       @@ -1 +1,2 @@
        Hello World
       +It's a new day for git





COMMITTING GIT STATE
       Now, we want to go to the next stage in git, which is to take the files
       that git knows about in the index, and commit them as a real tree. We
       do that in two phases: creating a tree object, and committing that tree
       object as a commit object together with an explanation of what the tree
       was all about, along with information of how we came to that state.


       Creating a tree object is trivial, and is done with git write-tree.
       There are no options or other input: git write-tree will take the
       current index state, and write an object that describes that whole
       index. In other words, we&#8217;re now tying together all the different
       filenames with their contents (and their permissions), and we&#8217;re
       creating the equivalent of a git "directory" object:

       $ git write-tree





       and this will just output the name of the resulting tree, in this case
       (if you have done exactly as I&#8217;ve described) it should be

       8988da15d077d4829fc51d8544c097def6644dbb





       which is another incomprehensible object name. Again, if you want to,
       you can use git cat-file -t 8988d... to see that this time the object
       is not a "blob" object, but a "tree" object (you can also use git
       cat-file to actually output the raw object contents, but you&#8217;ll
       see mainly a binary mess, so that&#8217;s less interesting).


       However&#8201;--&#8201;normally you&#8217;d never use git write-tree on
       its own, because normally you always commit a tree into a commit object
       using the git commit-tree command. In fact, it&#8217;s easier to not
       actually use git write-tree on its own at all, but to just pass its
       result in as an argument to git commit-tree.


       git commit-tree normally takes several arguments&#8201;--&#8201;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.


       And this is where we create the .git/refs/heads/master file which is
       pointed at by HEAD. This file is supposed to contain the reference to
       the top-of-tree of the master branch, and since that&#8217;s exactly
       what git commit-tree spits out, we can do this all with a sequence of
       simple shell commands:

       $ tree=$(git write-tree)
       $ commit=$(echo 'Initial commit' | git commit-tree $tree)
       $ git update-ref HEAD $commit





       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&#8217;d never actually do this by hand. There is a
       helpful script called git commit that will do all of this for you. So
       you could have just written git commit instead, and it would have done
       the above magic scripting for you.


MAKING A CHANGE
       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?


       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 fact
       the original contents of the file hello, not the new ones. We did that
       on purpose, to show the difference between the index state, and the
       state in the working tree, and how they don&#8217;t have to match, even
       when we commit things.


       As before, if we do git diff-files -p in our git-tutorial project,
       we&#8217;ll still see the same difference we saw last time: the index
       file hasn&#8217;t changed by the act of committing anything. However,
       now that we have committed something, we can also learn to use a new
       command: git diff-index.


       Unlike git diff-files, which showed the difference between the index
       file and the working tree, git diff-index shows the differences 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&#8217;t do that, because we
       didn&#8217;t have anything to diff against.


       But now we can do

       $ git diff-index -p HEAD





       (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.
       Now we&#8217;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.


       Again, because this is a common operation, you can also just shorthand
       it with

       $ git diff HEAD





       which ends up doing the above for you.


       In other words, git diff-index normally compares a tree against the
       working tree, but when given the --cached flag, it is told to 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&#8217;s exactly what it does.


              Note

              git diff-index really always uses the index for its comparisons,
              and saying that it compares a tree against the working tree is
              thus not strictly accurate. In particular, the list of files to
              compare (the "meta-data") always comes from the index file,
              regardless of whether the --cached flag is used or not. The
              --cached flag really only determines whether the file contents
              to be compared come from the working tree or not.


              This is not hard to understand, as soon as you realize that git
              simply never knows (or cares) about files that it is not told
              about explicitly. git will never go looking for files to
              compare, it expects you to tell it what the files are, and
              that&#8217;s what the index is there for.



       However, our next step is to commit the change we did, and again, to
       understand what&#8217;s going on, keep in mind the difference between
       "working tree contents", "index file" and "committed tree". We have
       changes in the working tree that we want to commit, and we always have
       to work through the index file, so the first thing we need to do is to
       update the index cache:

       $ git update-index hello





       (note how we didn&#8217;t need the --add flag this time, since git knew
       about the file already).


       Note what happens to the different git diff-* versions here. After
       we&#8217;ve updated hello in the index, git diff-files -p now shows no
       differences, but git diff-index -p HEAD still does show that the
       current state is different from the state we committed. In fact, now
       git diff-index shows the same difference whether we use the --cached
       flag or not, since now the index is coherent with the working tree.


       Now, since we&#8217;ve updated hello in the index, we can commit the
       new version. We could do it by writing the tree by hand again, and
       committing the tree (this time we&#8217;d have to use the -p HEAD flag
       to tell commit that the HEAD was the parent of the new commit, and that
       this wasn&#8217;t an initial commit any more), but you&#8217;ve done
       that once already, so let&#8217;s just use the helpful script this
       time:

       $ git commit





       which starts an editor for you to write the commit message and tells
       you a bit about what you have done.


       Write whatever message you want, and all the lines that start with #
       will be pruned out, and the rest will be used as the commit message for
       the change. If you decide you don&#8217;t want to commit anything after
       all at this point (you can continue to edit things and update the
       index), you can just leave an empty message. Otherwise git commit will
       commit the change for you.


       You&#8217;ve now made your first real git commit. And if you&#8217;re
       interested in looking at what git commit really does, feel free to
       investigate: it&#8217;s a few very simple shell scripts to generate the
       helpful (?) commit message headers, and a few one-liners that actually
       do the commit itself (git commit).


INSPECTING CHANGES
       While creating changes is useful, it&#8217;s even more useful if you
       can tell later what changed. The most useful command for this is
       another of the diff family, namely git diff-tree.


       git diff-tree can be given two arbitrary trees, and it will tell you
       the differences between them. Perhaps even more commonly, though, you
       can give it just a single commit object, and it will figure out the
       parent of that commit itself, and show the difference directly. Thus,
       to get the same diff that we&#8217;ve already seen several times, we
       can now do

       $ git diff-tree -p HEAD





       (again, -p means to show the difference as a human-readable patch), and
       it will show what the last commit (in HEAD) actually changed.


              Note

              Here is an ASCII art by Jon Loeliger that illustrates how
              various diff-* commands compare things.

                          diff-tree
                           +----+
                           |    |
                           |    |
                           V    V
                        +-----------+
                        | Object DB |
                        |  Backing  |
                        |   Store   |
                        +-----------+
                          ^    ^
                          |    |
                          |    |  diff-index --cached
                          |    |
              diff-index  |    V
                          |  +-----------+
                          |  |   Index   |
                          |  |  "cache"  |
                          |  +-----------+
                          |    ^
                          |    |
                          |    |  diff-files
                          |    |
                          V    V
                        +-----------+
                        |  Working  |
                        | Directory |
                        +-----------+



       More interestingly, you can also give git diff-tree the --pretty flag,
       which tells it to also show the commit message and author and date of
       the commit, and you can tell it to show a whole series of diffs.
       Alternatively, you can tell it to be "silent", and not show the diffs
       at all, but just show the actual commit message.


       In fact, together with the git rev-list program (which generates a list
       of revisions), git diff-tree ends up being a veritable fount of
       changes. A trivial (but very useful) script called git whatchanged is
       included with git which does exactly this, and shows a log of recent
       activities.


       To see the whole history of our pitiful little git-tutorial project,
       you can do

       $ git log





       which shows just the log messages, or if we want to see the log
       together with the associated patches use the more complex (and much
       more powerful)

       $ git whatchanged -p





       and you will see exactly what has changed in the repository over its
       short history.


              Note

              When using the above two commands, the initial commit will be
              shown. If this is a problem because it is huge, you can hide it
              by setting the log.showroot configuration variable to false.
              Having this, you can still show it for each command just adding
              the --root option, which is a flag for git diff-tree accepted by
              both commands.



       With that, you should now be having some inkling of what git does, and
       can explore on your own.


              Note

              Most likely, you are not directly using the core git Plumbing
              commands, but using Porcelain such as git add,
              &#8216;git-rm&#8217; and &#8216;git-commit&#8217;.



TAGGING A VERSION
       In git, there are two kinds of tags, a "light" one, and an "annotated
       tag".


       A "light" tag is technically nothing more than a branch, except we put
       it in the .git/refs/tags/ subdirectory instead of calling it a head. So
       the simplest form of tag involves nothing more than

       $ git tag my-first-tag





       which just writes the current HEAD into the .git/refs/tags/my-first-tag
       file, after which point you can then use this symbolic name for that
       particular state. You can, for example, do

       $ git diff my-first-tag





       to diff your current state against that tag which at this point will
       obviously be an empty diff, but if you continue to develop and commit
       stuff, you can use your tag as an "anchor-point" to see what has
       changed since you tagged it.


       An "annotated tag" is actually a real git object, and contains not only
       a pointer to the state you want to tag, but also a small tag name and
       message, along with optionally a PGP signature that says that yes, you
       really did that tag. You create these annotated tags with either the -a
       or -s flag to git tag:

       $ git tag -s <tagname>





       which will sign the current HEAD (but you can also give it another
       argument that specifies the thing to tag, e.g., 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 like
       that, while the light-weight tags are useful for any marking you want
       to do&#8201;--&#8201;any time you decide that you want to remember a
       certain point, just create a private tag for it, and you have a nice
       symbolic name for the state at that point.


COPYING REPOSITORIES
       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 subdirectory. There is
       nothing else. What you see is what you got.


              Note

              You can tell git to split the git internal information from the
              directory that it tracks, but we&#8217;ll ignore that for now:
              it&#8217;s not how normal projects work, and it&#8217;s really
              only meant for special uses. So the mental model of "the git
              information is always tied directly to the working tree that it
              describes" may not be technically 100% accurate, but it&#8217;s
              a good model for all normal use.



       This has two implications:


       o  if you grow bored with the tutorial repository you created (or
          you&#8217;ve made a mistake and want to start all over), you can
          just do simple


          $ rm -rf git-tutorial


          and it will be gone. There&#8217;s no external repository, and
          there&#8217;s no history outside the project you created.

       o  if you want to move or duplicate a git repository, you can do so.
          There is git clone command, but if all you want to do is just to
          create a copy of your repository (with all the full history that
          went along with it), you can do so with a regular cp -a git-tutorial
          new-git-tutorial.

          Note that when you&#8217;ve moved or copied a git repository, your
          git index file (which caches various information, notably some of
          the "stat" information for the files involved) will likely need to
          be refreshed. So after you do a cp -a to create a new copy,
          you&#8217;ll want to do


          $ git update-index --refresh


          in the new repository to make sure that the index file is
          up-to-date.

       Note that the second point is true even across machines. You can
       duplicate a remote git repository with any regular copy mechanism, be
       it scp, rsync or wget.


       When copying a remote repository, you&#8217;ll want to at a minimum
       update the index cache when you do this, and especially with other
       peoples' repositories you often want to make sure that the index cache
       is in some known state (you don&#8217;t know what they&#8217;ve done
       and not yet checked in), so usually you&#8217;ll precede the git
       update-index with a

       $ git read-tree --reset HEAD
       $ git update-index --refresh





       which will force a total index re-build from the tree pointed to by
       HEAD. It resets the index contents to HEAD, and then the git
       update-index makes sure to match up all index entries with the
       checked-out files. If the original repository had uncommitted changes
       in its working tree, git update-index --refresh notices them and tells
       you they need to be updated.


       The above can also be written as simply

       $ git reset





       and in fact a lot of the common git command combinations can be
       scripted with the git xyz interfaces. You can learn things by just
       looking at what the various git scripts do. For example, git reset used
       to be the above two lines implemented in git reset, but some things
       like git status and git commit are slightly more complex scripts around
       the basic git commands.


       Many (most?) public remote repositories will not contain any of the
       checked out files or even an index file, and will only contain the
       actual core git files. Such a repository usually doesn&#8217;t even
       have the .git subdirectory, but has all the git files directly in the
       repository.


       To create your own local live copy of such a "raw" git repository,
       you&#8217;d first create your own subdirectory for the project, and
       then copy the raw repository contents into the .git directory. For
       example, to create your own copy of the git repository, you&#8217;d do
       the following

       $ mkdir my-git
       $ cd my-git
       $ rsync -rL rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ .git





       followed by

       $ git read-tree HEAD





       to populate the index. However, now you have populated the index, and
       you have all the git internal files, but you will notice that you
       don&#8217;t actually have any of the working tree files to work on. To
       get those, you&#8217;d check them out with

       $ git checkout-index -u -a





       where the -u flag means that you want the checkout to keep the index
       up-to-date (so that you don&#8217;t have to refresh it afterward), and
       the -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).


       Again, this can all be simplified with

       $ git clone rsync://rsync.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ my-git
       $ cd my-git
       $ git checkout





       which will end up doing all of the above for you.


       You have now successfully copied somebody else&#8217;s (mine) remote
       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.


       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&#8217;s just a convention,
       though, and nothing enforces it.


       To show that as an example, let&#8217;s go back to the git-tutorial
       repository we used earlier, and create a branch in it. You do that by
       simply just saying that you want to check out a new branch:

       $ git checkout -b mybranch





       will create a new branch based at the current HEAD position, and switch
       to it.


              Note

              If you make the decision to start your new branch at some other
              point in the history than the current HEAD, you can do so by
              just telling git checkout what the base of the checkout would
              be. In other words, if you have an earlier tag or branch,
              you&#8217;d just do

              $ git checkout -b mybranch earlier-commit





              and it would create the new branch mybranch at the earlier
              commit, and check out the state at that time.



       You can always just jump back to your original master branch by doing

       $ git checkout master





       (or any other branch-name, for that matter) and if you forget which
       branch you happen to be on, a simple

       $ cat .git/HEAD





       will tell you where it&#8217;s pointing. To get the list of branches
       you have, you can say

       $ git branch





       which used to be nothing more than a simple script around ls
       .git/refs/heads. There will be an asterisk in front of the branch you
       are currently on.


       Sometimes you may wish to create a new branch without actually checking
       it out and switching to it. If so, just use the command

       $ git branch <branchname> [startingpoint]





       which will simply create the branch, but will not do anything further.
       You can then later&#8201;--&#8201;once you decide that you want to
       actually develop on that branch&#8201;--&#8201;switch to that branch
       with a regular git checkout with the branchname as the argument.


MERGING TWO BRANCHES
       One of the ideas of having a branch is that you do some (possibly
       experimental) work in it, and eventually merge it back to the main
       branch. So assuming you created the above mybranch that started out
       being the same as the original master branch, let&#8217;s make sure
       we&#8217;re in that branch, and do some work there.

       $ git checkout mybranch
       $ echo "Work, work, work" >>hello
       $ git commit -m "Some work." -i hello





       Here, we just added another line to hello, and we used a shorthand for
       doing both git update-index hello and git commit by just giving the
       filename directly to git commit, with an -i flag (it tells git to
       include that file in addition to what you have done to the index file
       so far when making the commit). The -m flag is to give the commit log
       message from the command line.


       Now, to make it a bit more interesting, let&#8217;s assume that
       somebody else does some work in the original branch, and simulate that
       by going back to the master branch, and editing the same file
       differently there:

       $ git checkout master





       Here, take a moment to look at the contents of hello, and notice how
       they don&#8217;t contain the work we just did in
       mybranch&#8201;--&#8201;because that work hasn&#8217;t happened in the
       master branch at all. Then do

       $ echo "Play, play, play" >>hello
       $ echo "Lots of fun" >>example
       $ git commit -m "Some fun." -i hello example





       since the master branch is obviously in a much better mood.


       Now, you&#8217;ve got two branches, and you decide that you want to
       merge the work done. Before we do that, let&#8217;s introduce a cool
       graphical tool that helps you view what&#8217;s going on:

       $ gitk --all





       will show you graphically both of your branches (that&#8217;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.


       Anyway, let&#8217;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
       branch (which is currently our HEAD too). To do that, there&#8217;s a
       nice script called git merge, which wants to know which branches you
       want to resolve and what the merge is all about:

       $ git merge -m "Merge work in mybranch" mybranch





       where the first argument is going to be used as the commit message if
       the merge can be resolved automatically.


       Now, in this case we&#8217;ve intentionally created a situation where
       the merge will need to be fixed up by hand, though, so git will do as
       much of it as it can automatically (which in this case is just merge
       the example file, which had no differences in the mybranch branch), and
       say:

               Auto-merging hello
               CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in hello
               Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.





       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&#8217;ve ever used CVS, so
       let&#8217;s just open hello in our editor (whatever that may be), and
       fix it up somehow. I&#8217;d suggest just making it so that hello
       contains all four lines:

       Hello World
       It's a new day for git
       Play, play, play
       Work, work, work





       and once you&#8217;re happy with your manual merge, just do a

       $ git commit -i hello





       which will very loudly warn you that you&#8217;re now committing a
       merge (which is correct, so never mind), and you can write a small
       merge message about your adventures in git merge-land.


       After you&#8217;re done, start up gitk --all to see graphically what
       the history looks like. Notice that mybranch still exists, and you can
       switch to it, and continue to work with it if you want to. The mybranch
       branch will not contain the merge, but next time you merge it from the
       master branch, git will know how you merged it, so you&#8217;ll not
       have to do that merge again.


       Another useful tool, especially if you do not always work in X-Window
       environment, is git show-branch.

       $ git show-branch --topo-order --more=1 master mybranch
       * [master] Merge work in mybranch
        ! [mybranch] Some work.
       --
       -  [master] Merge work in mybranch
       *+ [mybranch] Some work.
       *  [master^] Some fun.





       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 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. All of them have non blank characters in the first column (*
       shows an ordinary commit on the current branch, - is a merge commit),
       which means they are now part of the master branch. Only the "Some
       work" commit has the plus + character in the second column, because
       mybranch has not been merged to incorporate these commits from the
       master branch. The string inside brackets before the commit log message
       is a short name you can use to name the commit. In the above example,
       master and mybranch are branch heads. master^ is the first parent of
       master branch head. Please see gitrevisions(7) if you want to see more
       complex cases.


              Note

              Without the --more=1 option, git show-branch would not output
              the [master^] commit, as [mybranch] commit is a common ancestor
              of both master and mybranch tips. Please see git-show-branch(1)
              for details.



              Note

              If there were more commits on the master branch after the merge,
              the merge commit itself would not be shown by git show-branch by
              default. You would need to provide --sparse option to make the
              merge commit visible in this case.



       Now, let&#8217;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&#8217;s go back to mybranch, and run git merge
       to get the "upstream changes" back to your branch.

       $ git checkout mybranch
       $ git merge -m "Merge upstream changes." master





       This outputs something like this (the actual commit object names would
       be different)

       Updating from ae3a2da... to a80b4aa....
       Fast-forward (no commit created; -m option ignored)
        example |    1 +
        hello   |    1 +
        2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)





       Because your branch did not contain anything more than what had already
       been 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.


       You can run gitk --all again to see how the commit ancestry looks like,
       or run show-branch, which tells you this.

       $ git show-branch master mybranch
       ! [master] Merge work in mybranch
        * [mybranch] Merge work in mybranch
       --
       -- [master] Merge work in mybranch





MERGING EXTERNAL WORK
       It&#8217;s usually much more common that you merge with somebody else
       than merging with your own branches, so it&#8217;s worth pointing out
       that git makes that very easy too, and in fact, it&#8217;s not that
       different from doing a git merge. In fact, a remote merge ends up being
       nothing more than "fetch the work from a remote repository into a
       temporary tag" followed by a git merge.


       Fetching from a remote repository is done by, unsurprisingly, git
       fetch:

       $ git fetch <remote-repository>





       One of the following transports can be used to name the repository to
       download from:


       Rsync
               rsync://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/

              Rsync transport is usable for both uploading and downloading,
              but is completely unaware of what git does, and can produce
              unexpected results when you download from the public repository
              while the repository owner is uploading into it via rsync
              transport. Most notably, it could update the files under refs/
              which holds the object name of the topmost commits before
              uploading the files in objects/&#8201;--&#8201;the downloader
              would obtain head commit object name while that object itself is
              still not available in the repository. For this reason, it is
              considered deprecated.


       SSH
               remote.machine:/path/to/repo.git/ or

              ssh://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/

              This transport can be used for both uploading and downloading,
              and requires you to have a log-in privilege over ssh to the
              remote machine. It finds out the set of objects the other side
              lacks by exchanging the head commits both ends have and
              transfers (close to) minimum set of objects. It is by far the
              most efficient way to exchange git objects between repositories.


       Local directory
               /path/to/repo.git/

              This transport is the same as SSH transport but uses sh to run
              both ends on the local machine instead of running other end on
              the remote machine via ssh.


       git Native
               git://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/

              This transport was designed for anonymous downloading. Like SSH
              transport, it finds out the set of objects the downstream side
              lacks and transfers (close to) minimum set of objects.


       HTTP(S)
               http://remote.machine/path/to/repo.git/

              Downloader from http and https URL first obtains the topmost
              commit object name from the remote site by looking at the
              specified refname under repo.git/refs/ directory, and then tries
              to obtain the commit object by downloading from
              repo.git/objects/xx/xxx... 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
              behavior, they are sometimes also called commit walkers.

              The commit walkers are sometimes also called dumb transports,
              because they do not require any git aware smart server like git
              Native transport does. Any stock HTTP server that does not even
              support directory index would suffice. But you must prepare your
              repository with git update-server-info to help dumb transport
              downloaders.


              Once you fetch from the remote repository, you merge that with
              your current branch.


              However&#8201;--&#8201;it&#8217;s such a common thing to fetch
              and then immediately merge, that it&#8217;s called git pull, and
              you can simply do

              $ git pull <remote-repository>





              and optionally give a branch-name for the remote end as a second
              argument.


              Note

              You could do without using any branches at all, by 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 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.



       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 the local repository&#8217;s config file like this:

       $ 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.


       1.
           git pull linus

       2.
           git pull linus tag v0.99.1

       the above are equivalent to:


       1.
           git pull http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/:
          http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ HEAD

       2.
           git pull http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/:
          http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/ tag v0.99.1

HOW DOES THE MERGE WORK?
       We said this tutorial shows what plumbing does to help you cope with
       the porcelain that isn&#8217;t flushing, but we so far did not talk
       about how the merge really works. If you are following this tutorial
       the first time, I&#8217;d suggest to skip to "Publishing your work"
       section and come back here later.


       OK, still with me? To give us an example to look at, let&#8217;s go
       back to the earlier repository with "hello" and "example" file, and
       bring ourselves back to the pre-merge state:

       $ git show-branch --more=2 master mybranch
       ! [master] Merge work in mybranch
        * [mybranch] Merge work in mybranch
       --
       -- [master] Merge work in mybranch
       +* [master^2] Some work.
       +* [master^] Some fun.





       Remember, before running git merge, our master head was at "Some fun."
       commit, while our mybranch head was at "Some work." commit.

       $ git checkout mybranch
       $ git reset --hard master^2
       $ git checkout master
       $ git reset --hard master^





       After rewinding, the commit structure should look like this:

       $ git show-branch
       * [master] Some fun.
        ! [mybranch] Some work.
       --
       *  [master] Some fun.
        + [mybranch] Some work.
       *+ [master^] Initial commit





       Now we are ready to experiment with the merge by hand.


       git merge command, when merging two branches, uses 3-way merge
       algorithm. First, it finds the common ancestor between them. The
       command it uses is git merge-base:

       $ mb=$(git merge-base HEAD mybranch)





       The command writes the commit object name of the common ancestor to the
       standard output, so we captured its output to a variable, because we
       will be using it in the next step. By the way, the common ancestor
       commit is the "Initial commit" commit in this case. You can tell it by:

       $ git name-rev --name-only --tags $mb
       my-first-tag





       After finding out a common ancestor commit, the second step is this:

       $ git read-tree -m -u $mb HEAD mybranch





       This is the same git read-tree command we have already seen, but it
       takes three trees, unlike previous examples. This reads the contents of
       each tree into different stage in the index file (the first tree goes
       to stage 1, the second to stage 2, etc.). After reading three trees
       into three stages, the paths that are the same in all three stages are
       collapsed into stage 0. Also paths that are the same in two of three
       stages are collapsed into stage 0, taking the SHA1 from either stage 2
       or stage 3, whichever is different from stage 1 (i.e. only one side
       changed from the common ancestor).


       After collapsing operation, paths that are different in three trees are
       left in non-zero stages. At this point, you can inspect the index file
       with this command:

       $ git ls-files --stage
       100644 7f8b141b65fdcee47321e399a2598a235a032422 0       example
       100644 557db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238 1       hello
       100644 ba42a2a96e3027f3333e13ede4ccf4498c3ae942 2       hello
       100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3       hello





       In our example of only two files, we did not have unchanged files so
       only example resulted in collapsing. But in real-life large projects,
       when only a small number of files change in one commit, this collapsing
       tends to trivially merge most of the paths fairly quickly, leaving only
       a handful of real changes in non-zero stages.


       To look at only non-zero stages, use --unmerged flag:

       $ git ls-files --unmerged
       100644 557db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238 1       hello
       100644 ba42a2a96e3027f3333e13ede4ccf4498c3ae942 2       hello
       100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3       hello





       The next step of merging is to merge these three versions of the file,
       using 3-way merge. This is done by giving git merge-one-file command as
       one of the arguments to git merge-index command:

       $ git merge-index git-merge-one-file hello
       Auto-merging hello
       ERROR: Merge conflict in hello
       fatal: merge program failed





       git merge-one-file script is called with parameters to describe those
       three versions, and is responsible to leave the merge results in the
       working tree. It is a fairly straightforward shell script, and
       eventually calls merge program from RCS suite to perform a file-level
       3-way merge. In this case, merge detects conflicts, and the merge
       result with conflict marks is left in the working tree.. This can be
       seen if you run ls-files --stage again at this point:

       $ git ls-files --stage
       100644 7f8b141b65fdcee47321e399a2598a235a032422 0       example
       100644 557db03de997c86a4a028e1ebd3a1ceb225be238 1       hello
       100644 ba42a2a96e3027f3333e13ede4ccf4498c3ae942 2       hello
       100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3       hello





       This is the state of the index file and the working file after git
       merge returns control back to you, leaving the conflicting merge for
       you to resolve. Notice that the path hello is still unmerged, and what
       you see with git diff at this point is differences since stage 2 (i.e.
       your version).


PUBLISHING YOUR WORK
       So, we can use somebody else&#8217;s work from a remote repository, but
       how can you prepare a repository to let other people pull from it?


       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 things are usually done. A recommended
       way is to have a public repository, make it reachable by other people,
       and when the changes you made in your primary working tree are in good
       shape, update the public repository from it. This is often called
       pushing.


              Note

              This public repository could further be mirrored, and that is
              how git repositories at kernel.org are managed.



       Publishing the changes from your local (private) repository to your
       remote (public) repository requires a write privilege on the remote
       machine. You need to have an SSH account there to run a single command,
       git-receive-pack.


       First, you need to create an empty repository on the remote machine
       that will house your public repository. This empty repository will be
       populated and be kept up-to-date by pushing into it later. Obviously,
       this repository creation needs to be done only once.


              Note

              git push uses a pair of commands, git send-pack on your local
              machine, and git-receive-pack on the remote machine. The
              communication between the two over the network internally uses
              an SSH connection.



       Your private repository&#8217;s git directory is usually .git, but your
       public repository is often named after the project name, i.e.
       <project>.git. Let&#8217;s create such a public repository for project
       my-git. After logging into the remote machine, create an empty
       directory:

       $ mkdir my-git.git





       Then, make that directory into a git repository by running 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





       Make sure this directory is available for others you want your changes
       to be pulled via the transport of your choice. Also you need to make
       sure that you have the git-receive-pack program on the $PATH.


              Note

              Many installations of sshd do not invoke your shell as the login
              shell when you directly run programs; what this means is that if
              your login shell is bash, only .bashrc is read and not
              .bash_profile. As a workaround, make sure .bashrc sets up $PATH
              so that you can run git-receive-pack program.



              Note

              If you plan to publish this repository to be accessed over http,
              you should do mv my-git.git/hooks/post-update.sample
              my-git.git/hooks/post-update at this point. This makes sure that
              every time you push into this repository, git update-server-info
              is run.



       Your "public repository" is now ready to accept your changes. Come back
       to the machine you have your private repository. From there, run this
       command:

       $ git push <public-host>:/path/to/my-git.git master





       This synchronizes your public repository to match the named branch head
       (i.e. master in this case) and objects reachable from them in your
       current repository.


       As a real example, this is how I update my public git repository.
       Kernel.org mirror network takes care of the propagation to other
       publicly visible machines:

       $ git push master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/git/git.git/





PACKING YOUR REPOSITORY
       Earlier, we saw that one file under .git/objects/??/ directory is
       stored for each git object you create. This representation is efficient
       to create atomically and safely, but not so convenient to transport
       over the network. Since git objects are immutable once they are
       created, there is a way to optimize the storage by "packing them
       together". The command

       $ git repack





       will do it for you. If you followed the tutorial examples, you would
       have accumulated about 17 objects in .git/objects/??/ directories by
       now. git repack tells you how many objects it packed, and stores the
       packed file in .git/objects/pack directory.


              Note

              You will see two files, pack-*.pack and pack-*.idx, in
              .git/objects/pack directory. They are closely related to each
              other, and if you ever copy them by hand to a different
              repository for whatever reason, you should make sure you copy
              them together. The former holds all the data from the objects in
              the pack, and the latter holds the index for random access.



       If you are paranoid, running git verify-pack command would detect if
       you have a corrupt pack, but do not worry too much. Our programs are
       always perfect ;-).


       Once you have packed objects, you do not need to leave the unpacked
       objects that are contained in the pack file anymore.

       $ git prune-packed





       would remove them for you.


       You can try running find .git/objects -type f before and after you run
       git prune-packed if you are curious. Also git count-objects would tell
       you how many unpacked objects are in your repository and how much space
       they are consuming.


              Note

              git pull is slightly cumbersome for HTTP transport, as a packed
              repository may contain relatively few objects in a relatively
              large pack. If you expect many HTTP pulls from your public
              repository you might want to repack & prune often, or never.



       If you run git repack again at this point, it will say "Nothing new to
       pack.". Once you continue your development and accumulate the changes,
       running git repack again will create a new pack, that contains objects
       created since you packed your repository the last time. We recommend
       that you pack your project soon after the initial import (unless you
       are starting your project from scratch), and then run git repack every
       once in a while, depending on how active your project is.


       When a repository is synchronized via git push and git pull objects
       packed in the source repository are usually stored unpacked in the
       destination, unless rsync transport is used. While this allows you to
       use different packing strategies on both ends, it also means you may
       need to repack both repositories every once in a while.


WORKING WITH OTHERS
       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&#8217;s presentation:
       http://www.xenotime.net/linux/mentor/linux-mentoring-2006.pdf.


       It should be stressed that this hierarchy is purely informal. There is
       nothing fundamental in git that enforces the "chain of patch flow" this
       hierarchy implies. You do not have to pull from only one remote
       repository.


       A recommended workflow for a "project lead" goes like this:


       1. Prepare your primary repository on your local machine. Your work is
          done there.

       2. Prepare a public repository accessible to others.

          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, $GIT_DIR/hooks/post-update.sample copied
          from the standard templates would contain a call to git
          update-server-info but you need to manually enable the hook with mv
          post-update.sample post-update. This makes sure git
          update-server-info keeps the necessary files up-to-date.

       3. Push into the public repository from your primary repository.

       4.
           git repack the public repository. This establishes a big pack that
          contains the initial set of objects as the baseline, and possibly
          git prune if the transport used for pulling from your repository
          supports packed repositories.

       5. Keep working in your primary repository. Your changes include
          modifications of your own, patches you receive via e-mails, and
          merges resulting from pulling the "public" repositories of your
          "subsystem maintainers".

          You can repack this private repository whenever you feel like.

       6. Push your changes to the public repository, and announce it to the
          public.

       7. Every once in a while, git repack the public repository. Go back to
          step 5. and continue working.

       A recommended work cycle for a "subsystem maintainer" who works on that
       project and has an own "public repository" goes like this:


       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 the remote.origin.url configuration variable.

       2. Prepare a public repository accessible to others, just like the
          "project lead" person does.

       3. Copy over the packed files from "project lead" public repository to
          your public repository, unless the "project lead" repository lives
          on the same machine as yours. In the latter case, you can use
          objects/info/alternates file to point at the repository you are
          borrowing from.

       4. Push into the public repository from your primary repository. Run
          git repack, and possibly git prune if the transport used for pulling
          from your repository supports packed repositories.

       5. Keep working in your primary repository. Your changes include
          modifications of your own, patches you receive via e-mails, and
          merges resulting from pulling the "public" repositories of your
          "project lead" and possibly your "sub-subsystem maintainers".

          You can repack this private repository whenever you feel like.

       6. Push your changes to your public repository, and ask your "project
          lead" and possibly your "sub-subsystem maintainers" to pull from it.

       7. Every once in a while, git repack the public repository. Go back to
          step 5. and continue working.

       A recommended work cycle for an "individual developer" who does not
       have a "public" repository is somewhat different. It goes like this:


       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 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/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 unmerged changes
          forward to the updated upstream.

       5. Use git format-patch origin to prepare patches for e-mail submission
          to your upstream and send it out. Go back to step 2. and continue.

WORKING WITH OTHERS, SHARED REPOSITORY STYLE
       If you are coming from CVS background, the style of cooperation
       suggested in the previous section may be new to you. You do not have to
       worry. git supports "shared public repository" style of cooperation you
       are probably more familiar with as well.


       See gitcvs-migration(7) for the details.


BUNDLING YOUR WORK TOGETHER
       It is likely that you will be working on more than one thing at a time.
       It is easy to manage those more-or-less independent tasks using
       branches with git.


       We have already seen how branches work previously, with "fun and work"
       example using two branches. The idea is the same if there are more than
       two branches. Let&#8217;s say you started out from "master" head, and
       have some new code in the "master" branch, and two independent fixes in
       the "commit-fix" and "diff-fix" branches:

       $ git show-branch
       ! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization.
        ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection.
         * [master] Release candidate #1
       ---
        +  [diff-fix] Fix rename detection.
        +  [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm.
       +   [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization.
         * [master] Release candidate #1
       ++* [diff-fix~2] Pretty-print messages.





       Both fixes are tested well, and at this point, you want to merge in
       both of them. You could merge in diff-fix first and then commit-fix
       next, like this:

       $ git merge -m "Merge fix in diff-fix" diff-fix
       $ git merge -m "Merge fix in commit-fix" commit-fix





       Which would result in:

       $ git show-branch
       ! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization.
        ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection.
         * [master] Merge fix in commit-fix
       ---
         - [master] Merge fix in commit-fix
       + * [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization.
         - [master~1] Merge fix in diff-fix
        +* [diff-fix] Fix rename detection.
        +* [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm.
         * [master~2] Release candidate #1
       ++* [master~3] Pretty-print messages.





       However, there is no particular reason to merge in one branch first and
       the other next, when what you have are a set of truly independent
       changes (if the order mattered, then they are not independent by
       definition). You could instead merge those two branches into the
       current branch at once. First let&#8217;s undo what we just did and
       start over. We would want to get the master branch before these two
       merges by resetting it to master~2:

       $ git reset --hard master~2





       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 merge these two branch heads (this is known as
       making an Octopus):

       $ git merge commit-fix diff-fix
       $ git show-branch
       ! [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization.
        ! [diff-fix] Fix rename detection.
         * [master] Octopus merge of branches 'diff-fix' and 'commit-fix'
       ---
         - [master] Octopus merge of branches 'diff-fix' and 'commit-fix'
       + * [commit-fix] Fix commit message normalization.
        +* [diff-fix] Fix rename detection.
        +* [diff-fix~1] Better common substring algorithm.
         * [master~1] Release candidate #1
       ++* [master~2] Pretty-print messages.





       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 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 those branches were not independent after all,
       and you should merge two at a time, documenting how you resolved the
       conflicts, and the reason why you preferred changes made in one side
       over the other. Otherwise it would make the project history harder to
       follow, not easier.


SEE ALSO
       gittutorial(7), gittutorial-2(7), gitcvs-migration(7), git-help(1),
       Everyday git: everyday.html, The Git User&#8217;s Manual: user-
       manual.html


GIT
       Part of the git(1) suite.




                                                           GITCORE-TUTORIAL(7)
