Git User Manual
Git User Manual
This manual is copy of the html version you can find on this site:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html
2 CONTENTS
Contents
Preface 5
7 Git concepts 43
7.1 The Object Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.1.1 Commit Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.1.2 Tree Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
7.1.3 Blob Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.1.4 Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
7.1.5 Tag Object . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.1.6 How git stores objects efficiently: pack files . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
7.1.7 Dangling objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
7.1.8 Recovering from repository corruption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7.2 The index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
8 Submodules 50
8.1 Pitfalls with submodules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10 Hacking git 58
10.1 Object storage format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
10.2 A birds-eye view of Git’s source code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
11 GIT Glossary 61
Index 70
Preface
Git is a fast distributed revision control system.
This manual is designed to be readable by someone with basic UNIX command-line skills, but no previous
knowledge of git.
Chapter 1 (p. 5), ”Repositories and Branches” and Chapter 2 (p. 11), ”Exploring git history” explain how to
fetch and study a project using git —read these chapters to learn how to build and test a particular version
of a software project, search for regressions, and so on.
People needing to do actual development will also want to read Chapter 3 (p. 17), ”Developing with git”
and Chapter 4 (p. 27), ”Sharing development with others”.
Further chapters cover more specialized topics.
Comprehensive reference documentation is available through the man pages. For a command such as
”git clone”, just use
$ man git-clone
See also Appendix A (p. 66), ”Git Quick Reference” for a brief overview of git commands, without any
explanation.
Finally, see Appendix B (p. 70), ”Notes and todo list for this manual ” for ways that you can help make this
manual more complete.
The initial clone may be time-consuming for a large project, but you will only need to clone once.
The clone command creates a new directory named after the project (”git” or ”linux-2.6” in the examples
above). After you cd into this directory, you will see that it contains a copy of the project files, called the
working tree, together with a special top-level directory named ”.git”, which contains all the information
about the history of the project.
$ git branch
* master
A freshly cloned repository contains a single branch head, by default named ”master”, with the working
directory initialized to the state of the project referred to by that branch head.
Most projects also use tags. Tags, like heads, are references into the project’s history, and can be listed using
the git-tag(1) command:
$ git tag -l
v2.6.11
v2.6.11-tree
v2.6.12
v2.6.12-rc2
v2.6.12-rc3
v2.6.12-rc4
v2.6.12-rc5
v2.6.12-rc6
v2.6.13
...
Tags are expected to always point at the same version of a project, while heads are expected to advance as
development progresses.
Create a new branch head pointing to one of these versions and check it out using git-checkout(1):
The working directory then reflects the contents that the project had when it was tagged v2.6.13, and
git-branch(1) shows two branches, with an asterisk marking the currently checked-out branch:
$ git branch
master
* new
If you decide that you’d rather see version 2.6.17, you can modify the current branch to point at v2.6.17
instead, with
Note that if the current branch head was your only reference to a particular point in history, then resetting
that branch may leave you with no way to find the history it used to point to; so use this command carefully.
Every change in the history of a project is represented by a commit. The git-show(1) command shows the
most recent commit on the current branch:
$ git show
commit 17cf781661e6d38f737f15f53ab552f1e95960d7
Author: Linus Torvalds <[email protected].(none)>
Date: Tue Apr 19 14:11:06 2005 -0700
As you can see, a commit shows who made the latest change, what they did, and why.
Every commit has a 40-hexdigit id, sometimes called the ”object name” or the ”SHA1 id”, shown on the
first line of the ”git show” output. You can usually refer to a commit by a shorter name, such as a tag or
a branch name, but this longer name can also be useful. Most importantly, it is a globally unique name for
this commit: so if you tell somebody else the object name (for example in email), then you are guaranteed
that name will refer to the same commit in their repository that it does in yours (assuming their repository
has that commit at all). Since the object name is computed as a hash over the contents of the commit, you
are guaranteed that the commit can never change without its name also changing.
In fact, in Chapter 7 (p. 43), ”Git concepts”, we shall see that everything stored in git history, including file
data and directory contents, is stored in an object with a name that is a hash of its contents.
If we need to talk about a particular commit, the character ”o” may be replaced with another letter or
number.
When we need to be precise, we will use the word ”branch” to mean a line of development, and ”branch
head” (or just ”head”) to mean a reference to the most recent commit on a branch. In the example above,
the branch head named ”A” is a pointer to one particular commit, but we refer to the line of three commits
leading up to that point as all being part of ”branch A”.
However, when no confusion will result, we often just use the term ”branch” both for branches and for
branch heads.
git branch <branch> create a new branch named <branch>, referencing the same point in history as the
current branch
git branch <branch> <start-point> create a new branch named <branch>, referencing <start-point>,
which may be specified any way you like, including using a branch name or a tag name
git branch -d <branch> delete the branch <branch>; if the branch you are deleting points to a commit
which is not reachable from the current branch, this command will fail with a warning.
git branch -D <branch> even if the branch points to a commit not reachable from the current branch,
you may know that that commit is still reachable from some other branch or tag. In that case it is
safe to use this command to force git to delete the branch.
git checkout <branch> make the current branch <branch>, updating the working directory to reflect
the version referenced by <branch>
git checkout -b <new> <start-point> create a new branch new> referencing <start-point>, and check
it out.
The special symbol ”HEAD” can always be used to refer to the current branch. In fact, git uses a file named
”HEAD” in the .git directory to remember which branch is current:
$ cat .git/HEAD
ref: refs/heads/master
The HEAD then refers to the SHA1 of the commit instead of to a branch, and git branch shows that you
are no longer on a branch:
$ cat .git/HEAD
427abfa28afedffadfca9dd8b067eb6d36bac53f
$ git branch
* (no branch)
master
$ git branch -r
origin/HEAD
origin/html
origin/maint
origin/man
origin/master
origin/next
origin/pu
origin/todo
You cannot check out these remote-tracking branches, but you can examine them on a branch of your own,
just as you would a tag:
Note that the name ”origin” is just the name that git uses by default to refer to the repository that you
cloned from.
The full name is occasionally useful if, for example, there ever exists a tag and a branch with the same name.
(Newly created refs are actually stored in the .git/refs directory, under the path given by their name.
However, for efficiency reasons they may also be packed together in a single file; see git-pack-refs(1)).
As another useful shortcut, the ”HEAD” of a repository can be referred to just using the name of that
repository. So, for example, ”origin” is usually a shortcut for the HEAD branch in the repository ”origin”.
For the complete list of paths which git checks for references, and the order it uses to decide which to choose
when there are multiple references with the same shorthand name, see the ”SPECIFYING REVISIONS” section
of git-rev-parse(1).
New remote-tracking branches will be stored under the shorthand name that you gave ”git remote add”,
in this case linux-nfs:
$ git branch -r
linux-nfs/master
origin/master
If you run ”git fetch <remote>” later, the tracking branches for the named <remote> will be updated.
If you examine the file .git/config, you will see that git has added a new stanza:
$ cat .git/config
...
[remote "linux-nfs"]
url = git://linux-nfs.org/pub/nfs-2.6.git
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/linux-nfs/*
...
This is what causes git to track the remote’s branches; you may modify or delete these configuration options
by editing .git/config with a text editor. (See the ”CONFIGURATION FILE” section of git-config(1) for
details.)
If you run ”git branch” at this point, you’ll see that git has temporarily moved you to a new branch named
”bisect”. This branch points to a commit (with commit id 65934 . . . ) that is reachable from ”master” but
not from v2.6.18. Compile and test it, and see whether it crashes. Assume it does crash. Then:
checks out an older version. Continue like this, telling git at each stage whether the version it gives you is
good or bad, and notice that the number of revisions left to test is cut approximately in half each time.
After about 13 tests (in this case), it will output the commit id of the guilty commit. You can then examine
the commit with git-show(1), find out who wrote it, and mail them your bug report with the commit id.
Finally, run
to return you to the branch you were on before and delete the temporary ”bisect” branch.
Note that the version which git-bisect checks out for you at each point is just a suggestion, and you’re
free to try a different version if you think it would be a good idea. For example, occasionally you may land
on a commit that broke something unrelated; run
which will run gitk and label the commit it chose with a marker that says ”bisect”. Chose a safe-looking
commit nearby, note its commit id, and check it out with:
then test, run ”bisect good” or ”bisect bad” as appropriate, and continue.
There are many more; see the ”SPECIFYING REVISIONS” section of the git-rev-parse(1) man page for
the complete list of ways to name revisions. Some examples:
$ git show fb47ddb2 # the first few characters of the object name
# are usually enough to specify it uniquely
$ git show HEAD^ # the parent of the HEAD commit
$ git show HEAD^^ # the grandparent
$ git show HEAD~4 # the great-great-grandparent
Recall that merge commits may have more than one parent; by default, ^ and ~ follow the first parent listed
in the commit, but you can also choose:
In addition to HEAD, there are several other special names for commits:
Merges (to be discussed later), as well as operations such as git-reset, which change the currently checked-
out commit, generally set ORIG_HEAD to the value HEAD had before the current operation.
The git-fetch operation always stores the head of the last fetched branch in FETCH_HEAD. For example, if
you run git fetch without specifying a local branch as the target of the operation
And of course you can combine all of these; the following finds commits since v2.5 which touch the Makefile
or any file under fs:
$ git log -p
See the ”--pretty” option in the git-log(1) man page for more display options.
Note that git log starts with the most recent commit and works backwards through the parents; however,
since git history can contain multiple independent lines of development, the particular order that commits
are listed in may be somewhat arbitrary.
That will produce the diff between the tips of the two branches. If you’d prefer to find the diff from their
common ancestor to test, you can use three dots instead of two:
Sometimes what you want instead is a set of patches; for this you can use git-format-patch(1):
will generate a file with a patch for each commit reachable from test but not from master.
Before the colon may be anything that names a commit, and after it may be any path to a file tracked by
git.
2.7 Examples
2.7.1 Counting the number of commits on a branch
Suppose you want to know how many commits you’ve made on ”mybranch” since it diverged from ”origin”:
Alternatively, you may often see this sort of thing done with the lower-level command git-rev-list(1),
which just lists the SHA1’s of all the given commits:
will tell you whether the contents of the project are the same at the two branches; in theory, however, it’s
possible that the same project contents could have been arrived at by two different historical routes. You
could compare the object names:
Or you could recall that the . . . operator selects all commits contained reachable from either one reference
or the other but not both: so
$ gitk e05db0fd..
Or you can use git-name-rev(1), which will give the commit a name based on any tag it finds pointing to
one of the commit’s descendants:
The git-describe(1) command does the opposite, naming the revision using a tag on which the given
commit is based:
but that may sometimes help you guess which tags might come after the given commit.
If you just want to verify whether a given tagged version contains a given commit, you could use git-merge-base(1):
The merge-base command finds a common ancestor of the given commits, and always returns one or the
other in the case where one is a descendant of the other; so the above output shows that e05db0fd actually
is an ancestor of v1.5.0-rc1.
Alternatively, note that
will produce empty output if and only if v1.5.0-rc1 includes e05db0fd, because it outputs only commits
that are not reachable from v1.5.0-rc1.
As yet another alternative, the git-show-branch(1) command lists the commits reachable from its argu-
ments with a display on the left-hand side that indicates which arguments that commit is reachable from.
So, you can run something like
Which shows that e05db0fd is reachable from itself, from v1.5.0-rc1, and from v1.5.0-rc2, but not from
v1.5.0-rc0.
We can get just the branch-head names, and remove ”master”, with the help of the standard utilities cut
and grep:
And then we can ask to see all the commits reachable from master but not from these other heads:
Obviously, endless variations are possible; for example, to see all commits reachable from some head but not
from any tag in the repository:
will use HEAD to produce a tar archive in which each filename is preceded by ”project/”.
If you’re releasing a new version of a software project, you may want to simultaneously make a changelog to
include in the release announcement.
Linus Torvalds, for example, makes new kernel releases by tagging them, then running:
#!/bin/sh
stable="$1"
last="$2"
new="$3"
echo "# git tag v$new"
echo "git archive --prefix=linux-$new v$new | gzip -9 > ../linux-$new.tar.gz"
echo "git diff v$stable v$new | gzip -9 > ../patch-$new.gz"
echo "git log --no-merges v$new ^v$last > ../ChangeLog-$new"
echo "git shortlog --no-merges v$new ^v$last > ../ShortLog"
echo "git diff --stat --summary -M v$last v$new > ../diffstat-$new"
and then he just cut-and-pastes the output commands after verifying that they look OK.
Figuring out why this works is left as an exercise to the (advanced) student. The git-log(1), git-diff-tree(1),
and git-hash-object(1) man pages may prove helpful.
[user]
name = Your Name Comes Here
email = [email protected]
(See the ”CONFIGURATION FILE” section of git-config(1) for details on the configuration file.)
$ mkdir project
$ cd project
$ git init
1. Making some changes to the working directory using your favorite editor.
3. Creating the commit using the content you told git about in step 2.
In practice, you can interleave and repeat steps 1 and 2 as many times as you want: in order to keep track
of what you want committed at step 3, git maintains a snapshot of the tree’s contents in a special staging
area called ”the index.”
At the beginning, the content of the index will be identical to that of the HEAD. The command ”git diff --cached”,
which shows the difference between the HEAD and the index, should therefore produce no output at that
point.
Modifying the index is easy:
To update the index with the new contents of a modified file, use
To remove a file from the index and from the working tree,
$ git rm path/to/file
always shows the difference between the HEAD and the index file —this is what you’d commit if you created
the commit now —and that
$ git diff
shows the difference between the working tree and the index file.
Note that ”git add” always adds just the current contents of a file to the index; further changes to the same
file will be ignored unless you run git-add on the file again.
When you’re ready, just run
$ git commit
and git will prompt you for a commit message and then create the new commit. Check to make sure it looks
like what you expected with
$ git show
As a special shortcut,
$ git commit -a
will update the index with any files that you’ve modified or removed and create a commit, all in one step.
A number of commands are useful for keeping track of what you’re about to commit:
$ git diff --cached # difference between HEAD and the index; what
# would be committed if you ran "commit" now.
$ git diff # difference between the index file and your
# working directory; changes that would not
# be included if you ran "commit" now.
$ git diff HEAD # difference between HEAD and working tree; what
# would be committed if you ran "commit -a" now.
$ git status # a brief per-file summary of the above.
You can also use git-gui(1) to create commits, view changes in the index and the working tree files, and
individually select diff hunks for inclusion in the index (by right-clicking on the diff hunk and choosing ”Stage
Hunk For Commit”).
Though not required, it’s a good idea to begin the commit message with a single short (less than 50 character)
line summarizing the change, followed by a blank line and then a more thorough description. Tools that
turn commits into email, for example, use the first line on the Subject line and the rest of the commit in the
body.
A project will often generate files that you do not want to track with git. This typically includes files
generated by a build process or temporary backup files made by your editor. Of course, not tracking files
with git is just a matter of not calling ”git add” on them. But it quickly becomes annoying to have these
untracked files lying around; e.g. they make ”git add .” and ”git commit -a” practically useless, and
they keep showing up in the output of ”git status”.
You can tell git to ignore certain files by creating a file called .gitignore in the top level of your working
directory, with contents such as:
See gitignore(5) for a detailed explanation of the syntax. You can also place .gitignore files in other
directories in your working tree, and they will apply to those directories and their subdirectories. The
.gitignore files can be added to your repository like any other files (just run git add .gitignore and git
commit, as usual), which is convenient when the exclude patterns (such as patterns matching build output
files) would also make sense for other users who clone your repository.
If you wish the exclude patterns to affect only certain repositories (instead of every repository for a given
project), you may instead put them in a file in your repository named .git/info/exclude, or in any file
specified by the core.excludesfile configuration variable. Some git commands can also take exclude
patterns directly on the command line. See gitignore(5) for the details.
merges the development in the branch ”branchname” into the current branch. If there are conflicts —for
example, if the same file is modified in two different ways in the remote branch and the local branch —then
you are warned; the output may look something like this:
Conflict markers are left in the problematic files, and after you resolve the conflicts manually, you can update
the index with the contents and run git commit, as you normally would when creating a new file.
If you examine the resulting commit using gitk, you will see that it has two parents, one pointing to the
top of the current branch, and one to the top of the other branch.
$ git commit
file.txt: needs merge
Also, git-status(1) will list those files as ”unmerged”, and the files with conflicts will have conflict markers
added, like this:
<<<<<<< HEAD:file.txt
Hello world
=======
Goodbye
>>>>>>> 77976da35a11db4580b80ae27e8d65caf5208086:file.txt
All you need to do is edit the files to resolve the conflicts, and then
Note that the commit message will already be filled in for you with some information about the merge.
Normally you can just use this default message unchanged, but you may add additional commentary of your
own if desired.
The above is all you need to know to resolve a simple merge. But git also provides more information to help
resolve conflicts:
$ git diff
diff --cc file.txt
index 802992c,2b60207..0000000
--- a/file.txt
+++ b/file.txt
@@@ -1,1 -1,1 +1,5 @@@
++<<<<<<< HEAD:file.txt
+Hello world
++=======
+ Goodbye
++>>>>>>> 77976da35a11db4580b80ae27e8d65caf5208086:file.txt
Recall that the commit which will be committed after we resolve this conflict will have two parents instead
of the usual one: one parent will be HEAD, the tip of the current branch; the other will be the tip of the other
branch, which is stored temporarily in MERGE_HEAD.
During the merge, the index holds three versions of each file. Each of these three ”file stages” represents a
different version of the file:
Since the stage 2 and stage 3 versions have already been updated with nonconflicting changes, the only
remaining differences between them are the important ones; thus git-diff(1) can use the information in
the index to show only those conflicts.
The diff above shows the differences between the working-tree version of file.txt and the stage 2 and stage 3
versions. So instead of preceding each line by a single ”+” or ”-”, it now uses two columns: the first column
is used for differences between the first parent and the working directory copy, and the second for differences
between the second parent and the working directory copy. (See the ”COMBINED DIFF FORMAT” section of
git-diff-files(1) for a details of the format.)
After resolving the conflict in the obvious way (but before updating the index), the diff will look like:
$ git diff
diff --cc file.txt
index 802992c,2b60207..0000000
--- a/file.txt
+++ b/file.txt
@@@ -1,1 -1,1 +1,1 @@@
- Hello world
-Goodbye
++Goodbye world
This shows that our resolved version deleted ”Hello world” from the first parent, deleted ”Goodbye” from
the second parent, and added ”Goodbye world”, which was previously absent from both.
Some special diff options allow diffing the working directory against any of these stages:
The git-log(1) and gitk(1) commands also provide special help for merges:
These will display all commits which exist only on HEAD or on MERGE_HEAD, and which touch an unmerged
file.
You may also use git-mergetool(1), which lets you merge the unmerged files using external tools such as
emacs or kdiff3.
Each time you resolve the conflicts in a file and update the index:
the different stages of that file will be ”collapsed”, after which git-diff will (by default) no longer show
diffs for that file.
Or, if you’ve already committed the merge that you want to throw away,
However, this last command can be dangerous in some cases —never throw away a commit you have already
committed if that commit may itself have been merged into another branch, as doing so may confuse further
merges.
If you make a commit that you later wish you hadn’t, there are two fundamentally different ways to fix the
problem:
1. You can create a new commit that undoes whatever was done by the old commit. This is the correct
thing if your mistake has already been made public.
2. You can go back and modify the old commit. You should never do this if you have already made the
history public; git does not normally expect the ”history” of a project to change, and cannot correctly
perform repeated merges from a branch that has had its history changed.
This will create a new commit which undoes the change in HEAD. You will be given a chance to edit the
commit message for the new commit.
You can also revert an earlier change, for example, the next-to-last:
In this case git will attempt to undo the old change while leaving intact any changes made since then. If
more recent changes overlap with the changes to be reverted, then you will be asked to fix conflicts manually,
just as in the case of resolving a merge.
which will replace the old commit by a new commit incorporating your changes, giving you a chance to edit
the old commit message first.
Again, you should never do this to a commit that may already have been merged into another branch; use
git-revert(1) instead in that case.
It is also possible to replace commits further back in the history, but this is an advanced topic to be left for
another chapter.
replaces path/to/file by the contents it had in the commit HEAD^, and also updates the index to match.
It does not change branches.
If you just want to look at an old version of the file, without modifying the working directory, you can do
that with git-show(1):
This command will save your changes away to the stash, and reset your working tree and the index to match
the tip of your current branch. Then you can make your fix as usual.
After that, you can go back to what you were working on with git stash apply:
$ git gc
to recompress the archive. This can be very time-consuming, so you may prefer to run git-gc when you
are not doing other work.
$ git fsck
dangling commit 7281251ddd2a61e38657c827739c57015671a6b3
dangling commit 2706a059f258c6b245f298dc4ff2ccd30ec21a63
dangling commit 13472b7c4b80851a1bc551779171dcb03655e9b5
dangling blob 218761f9d90712d37a9c5e36f406f92202db07eb
dangling commit bf093535a34a4d35731aa2bd90fe6b176302f14f
dangling commit 8e4bec7f2ddaa268bef999853c25755452100f8e
dangling tree d50bb86186bf27b681d25af89d3b5b68382e4085
dangling tree b24c2473f1fd3d91352a624795be026d64c8841f
...
Dangling objects are not a problem. At worst they may take up a little extra disk space. They can sometimes
provide a last-resort method for recovering lost work —see the section 7.1.7 (p. 47) called ”Dangling objects”
for details. However, if you wish, you can remove them with git-prune(1) or the --prune option to
git-gc(1):
$ git gc --prune
This may be time-consuming. Unlike most other git operations (including git-gc when run without any
options), it is not safe to prune while other git operations are in progress in the same repository.
If git-fsck(1) complains about sha1 mismatches or missing objects, you may have a much more serious
problem; your best option is probably restoring from backups. See the section 7.1.8 (p. 48) called ”Recovering
from repository corruption” for a detailed discussion.
This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the ”master” branch head. This syntax can
be used with any git command that accepts a commit, not just with git log. Some other examples:
will show what HEAD pointed to one week ago, not what the current branch pointed to one week ago. This
allows you to see the history of what you’ve checked out.
The reflogs are kept by default for 30 days, after which they may be pruned. See git-reflog(1) and
git-gc(1) to learn how to control this pruning, and see the ”SPECIFYING REVISIONS” section of git-rev-parse(1)
for details.
Note that the reflog history is very different from normal git history. While normal history is shared by
every repository that works on the same project, the reflog history is not shared: it tells you only about how
the branches in your local repository have changed over time.
Examining dangling objects In some situations the reflog may not be able to save you. For example,
suppose you delete a branch, then realize you need the history it contained. The reflog is also deleted;
however, if you have not yet pruned the repository, then you may still be able to find the lost commits in
the dangling objects that git-fsck reports. See the section 7.1.7 (p. 47) called ”Dangling objects” for the
details.
$ git fsck
dangling commit 7281251ddd2a61e38657c827739c57015671a6b3
dangling commit 2706a059f258c6b245f298dc4ff2ccd30ec21a63
dangling commit 13472b7c4b80851a1bc551779171dcb03655e9b5
...
You can examine one of those dangling commits with, for example,
which does what it sounds like: it says that you want to see the commit history that is described by the
dangling commit(s), but not the history that is described by all your existing branches and tags. Thus you
get exactly the history reachable from that commit that is lost. (And notice that it might not be just one
commit: we only report the ”tip of the line” as being dangling, but there might be a whole deep and complex
commit history that was dropped.)
If you decide you want the history back, you can always create a new reference pointing to it, for example,
a new branch:
Other types of dangling objects (blobs and trees) are also possible, and dangling objects can arise in other
situations.
$ git fetch
$ git merge origin/master
In fact, if you have ”master” checked out, then by default ”git pull” merges from the HEAD branch of
the origin repository. So often you can accomplish the above with just a simple
$ git pull
More generally, a branch that is created from a remote branch will pull by default from that branch. See
the descriptions of the branch.<name>.remote and branch.<name>.merge options in git-config(1), and
the discussion of the --track option in git-checkout(1), to learn how to control these defaults.
In addition to saving you keystrokes, ”git pull” also helps you by producing a default commit message
documenting the branch and repository that you pulled from.
(But note that no such commit will be created in the case of a fast forward; instead, your branch will just
be updated to point to the latest commit from the upstream branch.)
The git-pull command can also be given ”.” as the ”remote” repository, in which case it just merges in a
branch from the current repository; so the commands
will produce a numbered series of files in the current directory, one for each patch in the current branch but
not in origin/HEAD.
You can then import these into your mail client and send them by hand. However, if you have a lot to send
at once, you may prefer to use the git-send-email(1) script to automate the process. Consult the mailing
list for your project first to determine how they prefer such patches be handled.
Git also provides a tool called git-am(1) (am stands for ”apply mailbox”), for importing such an emailed
series of patches. Just save all of the patch-containing messages, in order, into a single mailbox file, say
”patches.mbox”, then run
$ git am -3 patches.mbox
Git will apply each patch in order; if any conflicts are found, it will stop, and you can fix the conflicts as
described in section 3.7 (p. 20) ”Resolving a merge”. (The ”-3” option tells git to perform a merge; if you
would prefer it just to abort and leave your tree and index untouched, you may omit that option.)
Once the index is updated with the results of the conflict resolution, instead of creating a new commit, just
run
$ git am --resolved
and git will create the commit for you and continue applying the remaining patches from the mailbox.
The final result will be a series of commits, one for each patch in the original mailbox, with authorship and
commit log message each taken from the message containing each patch.
Another way to submit changes to a project is to tell the maintainer of that project to pull the changes from
your repository using git-pull(1). In the section 4.1 (p. 27) ”Getting updates with git pull ” we described
this as a way to get updates from the ”main” repository, but it works just as well in the other direction.
If you and the maintainer both have accounts on the same machine, then you can just pull changes from
each other’s repositories directly; commands that accept repository URLs as arguments will also accept a
local directory name:
or an ssh URL:
For projects with few developers, or for synchronizing a few private repositories, this may be all you need.
However, the more common way to do this is to maintain a separate public repository (usually on a different
host) for others to pull changes from. This is usually more convenient, and allows you to cleanly separate
private work in progress from publicly visible work.
You will continue to do your day-to-day work in your personal repository, but periodically ”push” changes
from your personal repository into your public repository, allowing other developers to pull from that reposi-
tory. So the flow of changes, in a situation where there is one other developer with a public repository, looks
like this:
you push
your personal repo ------------------> your public repo
^ |
| |
| you pull | they pull
| |
| |
| they push V
their public repo <------------------- their repo
The resulting directory proj.git contains a ”bare” git repository —it is just the contents of the .git
directory, without any files checked out around it.
Next, copy proj.git to the server where you plan to host the public repository. You can use scp, rsync, or
whatever is most convenient.
$ mv proj.git /home/you/public_html/proj.git
$ cd proj.git
$ git --bare update-server-info
$ chmod a+x hooks/post-update
(For an explanation of the last two lines, see git-update-server-info(1), and the documentation Hooks
used by git.)
Advertise the URL of proj.git. Anybody else should then be able to clone or pull from that URL, for
example with a command line like:
(See also setup-git-server-over-http for a slightly more sophisticated setup using WebDAV which also
allows pushing over http.)
or just
As with git-fetch, git-push will complain if this does not result in a fast forward; see the following section
for details on handling this case.
Note that the target of a ”push” is normally a bare repository. You can also push to a repository that
has a checked-out working tree, but the working tree will not be updated by the push. This may lead to
unexpected results if the branch you push to is the currently checked-out branch!
As with git-fetch, you may also set up configuration options to save typing; so, for example, after
You may force git-push to perform the update anyway by preceding the branch name with a plus sign:
Normally whenever a branch head in a public repository is modified, it is modified to point to a descendant
of the commit that it pointed to before. By forcing a push in this situation, you break that convention. (See
the section 5.6 (p. 39) called ”Problems with rewriting history”.)
Nevertheless, this is a common practice for people that need a simple way to publish a work-in-progress
patch series, and it is an acceptable compromise as long as you warn other developers that this is how you
intend to manage the branch.
It’s also possible for a push to fail in this way when other people have the right to push to the same repository.
In that case, the correct solution is to retry the push after first updating your work by either a pull or a
fetch followed by a rebase; see the next section and git for CVS users for more.
• Git’s ability to quickly import and merge patches allows a single maintainer to process incoming changes
even at very high rates. And when that becomes too much, git-pull provides an easy way for that
maintainer to delegate this job to other maintainers while still allowing optional review of incoming
changes.
• Since every developer’s repository has the same complete copy of the project history, no repository is
special, and it is trivial for another developer to take over maintenance of a project, either by mutual
agreement, or because a maintainer becomes unresponsive or difficult to work with.
• The lack of a central group of ”committers” means there is less need for formal decisions about who is
”in” and who is ”out”.
4.5 Examples
4.5.1 Maintaining topic branches for a Linux subsystem maintainer
This describes how Tony Luck uses git in his role as maintainer of the IA64 architecture for the Linux kernel.
He uses two public branches:
• A ”test” tree into which patches are initially placed so that they can get some exposure when integrated
with other ongoing development. This tree is available to Andrew for pulling into -mm whenever he
wants.
• A ”release” tree into which tested patches are moved for final sanity checking, and as a vehicle to send
them upstream to Linus (by sending him a ”please pull” request.)
He also uses a set of temporary branches (”topic branches”), each containing a logical grouping of patches.
To set this up, first create your work tree by cloning Linus’s public tree:
Linus’s tree will be stored in the remote branch named origin/master, and can be updated using git-fetch(1);
you can track other public trees using git-remote(1) to set up a ”remote” and git-fetch(1) to keep them
up-to-date; see Chapter 1 (p. 5), ”Repositories and Branches”.
Now create the branches in which you are going to work; these start out at the current tip of origin/master
branch, and should be set up (using the --track option to git-branch(1)) to merge changes in from Linus
by default.
Important note! If you have any local changes in these branches, then this merge will create a commit object
in the history (with no local changes git will simply do a ”Fast forward” merge). Many people dislike the
”noise” that this creates in the Linux history, so you should avoid doing this capriciously in the ”release”
branch, as these noisy commits will become part of the permanent history when you ask Linus to pull from
the release branch.
A few configuration variables (see git-config(1)) can make it easy to push both branches to your public
tree. (See the section 4.4.1 (p. 29) called ”Setting up a public repository”.)
Then you can push both the test and release trees using git-push(1):
or
Now to apply some patches from the community. Think of a short snappy name for a branch to hold this
patch (or related group of patches), and create a new branch from the current tip of Linus’s branch:
Now you apply the patch(es), run some tests, and commit the change(s). If the patch is a multi-part series,
then you should apply each as a separate commit to this branch.
$ ... patch ... test ... commit [ ... patch ... test ... commit ]*
When you are happy with the state of this change, you can pull it into the ”test” branch in preparation to
make it public:
It is unlikely that you would have any conflicts here . . . but you might if you spent a while on this step and
had also pulled new versions from upstream.
Some time later when enough time has passed and testing done, you can pull the same branch into the
”release” tree ready to go upstream. This is where you see the value of keeping each patch (or patch series)
in its own branch. It means that the patches can be moved into the ”release” tree in any order.
After a while, you will have a number of branches, and despite the well chosen names you picked for each of
them, you may forget what they are for, or what status they are in. To get a reminder of what changes are
in a specific branch, use:
To see whether it has already been merged into the test or release branches, use:
or
(If this branch has not yet been merged, you will see some log entries. If it has been merged, then there will
be no output.)
Once a patch completes the great cycle (moving from test to release, then pulled by Linus, and finally coming
back into your local ”origin/master” branch), the branch for this change is no longer needed. You detect
this when the output from:
Some changes are so trivial that it is not necessary to create a separate branch and then merge into each
of the test and release branches. For these changes, just apply directly to the ”release” branch, and then
merge that into the ”test” branch.
To create diffstat and shortlog summaries of changes to include in a ”please pull” request to Linus you can
use:
and
Here are some of the scripts that simplify all this even further.
case "$1" in
test|release)
git checkout $1 && git pull . origin
;;
origin)
before=$(git rev-parse refs/remotes/origin/master)
git fetch origin
after=$(git rev-parse refs/remotes/origin/master)
if [ $before != $after ]
then
git log $before..$after | git shortlog
fi
;;
*)
echo "Usage: $0 origin|test|release" 1>&2
exit 1
;;
esac
pname=$0
usage()
{
echo "Usage: $pname branch test|release" 1>&2
exit 1
}
case "$2" in
test|release)
if [ $(git log $2..$1 | wc -c) -eq 0 ]
then
echo $1 already merged into $2 1>&2
exit 1
fi
git checkout $2 && git pull . $1
;;
*)
usage
;;
esac
gb=$(tput setab 2)
rb=$(tput setab 1)
restore=$(tput setab 9)
2. Each patch includes a single logical change, together with a message explaining the change.
3. No patch introduces a regression: after applying any initial part of the series, the resulting project still
compiles and works, and has no bugs that it didn’t have before.
4. The complete series produces the same end result as your own (probably much messier!) development
process did.
We will introduce some tools that can help you do this, explain how to use them, and then explain some of
the problems that can arise because you are rewriting history.
You have performed no merges into mywork, so it is just a simple linear sequence of patches on top of
”origin”:
Some more interesting work has been done in the upstream project, and ”origin” has advanced:
At this point, you could use ”pull” to merge your changes back in; the result would create a new merge
commit, like this:
However, if you prefer to keep the history in mywork a simple series of commits without any merges, you
may instead choose to use git-rebase(1):
This will remove each of your commits from mywork, temporarily saving them as patches (in a directory
named .dotest), update mywork to point at the latest version of origin, then apply each of the saved
patches to the new mywork. The result will look like:
In the process, it may discover conflicts. In that case it will stop and allow you to fix the conflicts; after fixing
conflicts, use ”git add” to update the index with those contents, and then, instead of running git-commit,
just run
which will replace the old commit by a new commit incorporating your changes, giving you a chance to edit
the old commit message first.
You can also use a combination of this and git-rebase(1) to replace a commit further back in your history
and recreate the intervening changes on top of it. First, tag the problematic commit with
When you’re done, you’ll be left with mywork checked out, with the top patches on mywork reapplied on
top of your modified commit. You can then clean up with
Note that the immutable nature of git history means that you haven’t really ”modified” existing commits;
instead, you have replaced the old commits with new commits having new object names.
and browse through the list of patches in the mywork branch using gitk, applying them (possibly in a
different order) to mywork-new using cherry-pick, and possibly modifying them as you go using commit
--amend. The git-gui(1) command may also help as it allows you to individually select diff hunks for
inclusion in the index (by right-clicking on the diff hunk and choosing ”Stage Hunk for Commit”).
Another technique is to use git-format-patch to create a series of patches, then reset the state to before
the patches:
Then modify, reorder, or eliminate patches as preferred before applying them again with git-am(1).
If we examined all this history together in one repository, it will look like:
Git has no way of knowing that the new head is an updated version of the old head; it treats this situation
exactly the same as it would if two developers had independently done the work on the old and new heads
in parallel. At this point, if someone attempts to merge the new head in to their branch, git will attempt to
merge together the two (old and new) lines of development, instead of trying to replace the old by the new.
The results are likely to be unexpected.
You may still choose to publish branches whose history is rewritten, and it may be useful for others to be
able to fetch those branches in order to examine or test them, but they should not attempt to pull such
branches into their own work.
For true distributed development that supports proper merging, published branches should never be rewrit-
ten.
5.7 Why bisecting merge commits can be harder than bisecting linear history
The git-bisect(1) command correctly handles history that includes merge commits. However, when the
commit that it finds is a merge commit, the user may need to work harder than usual to figure out why that
commit introduced a problem.
Imagine this history:
---Z---o---X---...---o---A---C---D
\ /
o---o---Y---...---o---B
Suppose that on the upper line of development, the meaning of one of the functions that exists at Z is
changed at commit X. The commits from Z leading to A change both the function’s implementation and all
calling sites that exist at Z, as well as new calling sites they add, to be consistent. There is no bug at A.
Suppose that in the meantime on the lower line of development somebody adds a new calling site for that
function at commit Y. The commits from Z leading to B all assume the old semantics of that function and
the callers and the callee are consistent with each other. There is no bug at B, either.
Suppose further that the two development lines merge cleanly at C, so no conflict resolution is required.
Nevertheless, the code at C is broken, because the callers added on the lower line of development have not
been converted to the new semantics introduced on the upper line of development. So if all you know is that
D is bad, that Z is good, and that git-bisect(1) identifies C as the culprit, how will you figure out that
the problem is due to this change in semantics?
When the result of a git-bisect is a non-merge commit, you should normally be able to discover the
problem by examining just that commit. Developers can make this easy by breaking their changes into small
self-contained commits. That won’t help in the case above, however, because the problem isn’t obvious from
examination of any single commit; instead, a global view of the development is required. To make matters
worse, the change in semantics in the problematic function may be just one small part of the changes in the
upper line of development.
On the other hand, if instead of merging at C you had rebased the history between Z to B on top of A, you
would have gotten this linear history:
---Z---o---X--...---o---A---o---o---Y*--...---o---B*--D*
Bisecting between Z and D* would hit a single culprit commit Y*, and understanding why Y* was broken
would probably be easier.
Partly for this reason, many experienced git users, even when working on an otherwise merge-heavy project,
keep the history linear by rebasing against the latest upstream version before publishing.
The first argument, ”origin”, just tells git to fetch from the repository you originally cloned from. The
second argument tells git to fetch the branch named ”todo” from the remote repository, and to store it
locally under the name refs/heads/my-todo-work.
You can also fetch branches from other repositories; so
will create a new branch named ”example-master” and store in it the branch named ”master” from the
repository at the given URL. If you already have a branch named example-master, it will attempt to fast-
forward to the commit given by example.com’s master branch. In more detail:
In some cases it is possible that the new head will not actually be a descendant of the old head. For
example, the developer may have realized she made a serious mistake, and decided to backtrack, resulting
in a situation like:
In this case, ”git fetch” will fail, and print out a warning.
In that case, you can still force git to update to the new head, as described in the following section. However,
note that in the situation above this may mean losing the commits labeled ”a” and ”b”, unless you’ve already
created a reference of your own pointing to them.
Note the addition of the ”+” sign. Alternatively, you can use the ”-f” flag to force updates of all the fetched
branches, as in:
Be aware that commits that the old version of example/master pointed at may be lost, as we saw in the
previous section.
$ git config -l
core.repositoryformatversion=0
core.filemode=true
core.logallrefupdates=true
remote.origin.url=git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
remote.origin.fetch=+refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
branch.master.remote=origin
branch.master.merge=refs/heads/master
If there are other repositories that you also use frequently, you can create similar configuration options to
save typing; for example, after
You can also add a ”+” to force the update each time:
Don’t do this unless you’re sure you won’t mind ”git fetch” possibly throwing away commits on mybranch.
Also note that all of the above configuration can be performed by directly editing the file .git/config
instead of using git-config(1).
See git-config(1) for more details on the configuration options mentioned above.
7 Git concepts
Git is built on a small number of simple but powerful ideas. While it is possible to get things done without
understanding them, you will find git much more intuitive if you do.
We start with the most important, the object database and the index.
The ”commit” object links a physical state of a tree with a description of how we got there and why. Use
the --pretty=raw option to git-show(1) or git-log(1) to examine your favorite commit:
• a tree: The SHA1 name of a tree object (as defined below), representing the contents of a directory at
a certain point in time.
• parent(s): The SHA1 name of some number of commits which represent the immediately previous
step(s) in the history of the project. The example above has one parent; merge commits may have
more than one. A commit with no parents is called a ”root” commit, and represents the initial revision
of a project. Each project must have at least one root. A project can also have multiple roots, though
that isn’t common (or necessarily a good idea).
• an author: The name of the person responsible for this change, together with its date.
• a committer: The name of the person who actually created the commit, with the date it was done.
This may be different from the author, for example, if the author was someone who wrote a patch and
emailed it to the person who used it to create the commit.
Note that a commit does not itself contain any information about what actually changed; all changes are
calculated by comparing the contents of the tree referred to by this commit with the trees associated with
its parents. In particular, git does not attempt to record file renames explicitly, though it can identify cases
where the existence of the same file data at changing paths suggests a rename. (See, for example, the -M
option to git-diff(1)).
A commit is usually created by git-commit(1), which creates a commit whose parent is normally the current
HEAD, and whose tree is taken from the content currently stored in the index.
The ever-versatile git-show(1) command can also be used to examine tree objects, but git-ls-tree(1)
will give you more details:
As you can see, a tree object contains a list of entries, each with a mode, object type, SHA1 name, and
name, sorted by name. It represents the contents of a single directory tree.
The object type may be a blob, representing the contents of a file, or another tree, representing the contents
of a subdirectory. Since trees and blobs, like all other objects, are named by the SHA1 hash of their contents,
two trees have the same SHA1 name if and only if their contents (including, recursively, the contents of all
subdirectories) are identical. This allows git to quickly determine the differences between two related tree
objects, since it can ignore any entries with identical object names.
(Note: in the presence of submodules, trees may also have commits as entries. See Chapter 8 (p. 50),
”Submodules” for documentation.)
Note that the files all have mode 644 or 755: git actually only pays attention to the executable bit.
Note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as this project
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
...
A ”blob” object is nothing but a binary blob of data. It doesn’t refer to anything else or have attributes of
any kind.
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 its location in the directory tree, and renaming a file does not change the object that file is
associated with.
Note that any tree or blob object can be examined using git-show(1) with the <revision>:<path> syntax.
This can sometimes be useful for browsing the contents of a tree that is not currently checked out.
7.1.4 Trust
If you receive the SHA1 name of a blob from one source, and its contents from another (possibly untrusted)
source, you can still trust that those contents are correct as long as the SHA1 name agrees. This is because
the SHA1 is designed so that it is infeasible to find different contents that produce the same hash.
Similarly, you need only trust the SHA1 name of a top-level tree object to trust the contents of the entire
directory that it refers to, and if you receive the SHA1 name of a commit from a trusted source, then you
can easily verify the entire history of commits reachable through parents of that commit, and all of those
contents of the trees referred to by those commits.
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 commit. Your digital signature shows others that you
trust that commit, and the immutability of the history of commits tells others that they can trust the whole
history.
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 commit, and digitally sign that email using something like GPG/PGP.
To assist in this, git also provides the tag object . . .
A tag object contains an object, object type, tag name, the name of the person (”tagger”) who created the
tag, and a message, which may contain a signature, as can be seen using the git-cat-file(1):
GIT 1.5.0
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBF0lGqwMbZpPMRm5oRAuRiAJ9ohBLd7s2kqjkKlq1qqC57SbnmzQCdG4ui
nLE/L9aUXdWeTFPron96DLA=
=2E+0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
See the git-tag(1) command to learn how to create and verify tag objects. (Note that git-tag(1) can
also be used to create ”lightweight tags”, which are not tag objects at all, but just simple references whose
names begin with ”refs/tags/”).
Newly created objects are initially created in a file named after the object’s SHA1 hash (stored in .git/objects).
Unfortunately this system becomes inefficient once a project has a lot of objects. Try this on an old project:
$ git count-objects
6930 objects, 47620 kilobytes
The first number is the number of objects which are kept in individual files. The second is the amount of
space taken up by those ”loose” objects.
You can save space and make git faster by moving these loose objects in to a ”pack file”, which stores a
group of objects in an efficient compressed format; the details of how pack files are formatted can be found
in technical/pack-format.txt.
To put the loose objects into a pack, just run git repack:
$ git repack
Generating pack...
Done counting 6020 objects.
Deltifying 6020 objects.
100\% (6020/6020) done
Writing 6020 objects.
100\% (6020/6020) done
Total 6020, written 6020 (delta 4070), reused 0 (delta 0)
Pack pack-3e54ad29d5b2e05838c75df582c65257b8d08e1c created.
$ git prune
to remove any of the ”loose” objects that are now contained in the pack. This will also remove any unref-
erenced objects (which may be created when, for example, you use ”git reset” to remove a commit). You
can verify that the loose objects are gone by looking at the .git/objects directory or by running
$ git count-objects
0 objects, 0 kilobytes
Although the object files are gone, any commands that refer to those objects will work exactly as they did
before.
The git-gc(1) command performs packing, pruning, and more for you, so is normally the only high-level
command you need.
This asks for all the history reachable from the given commit but not from any branch, tag, or other reference.
If you decide it’s something you want, you can always create a new reference to it, e.g.,
For blobs and trees, you can’t do the same, but you can still examine them. You can just do
to show what the contents of the blob were (or, for a tree, basically what the ”ls” for that directory was),
and that may give you some idea of what the operation was that left that dangling object.
Usually, dangling blobs and trees aren’t very interesting. They’re almost always the result of either being a
half-way mergebase (the blob will often even have the conflict markers from a merge in it, if you have had
conflicting merges that you fixed up by hand), or simply because you interrupted a ”git fetch" with ^C or
something like that, leaving some of the new objects in the object database, but just dangling and useless.
Anyway, once you are sure that you’re not interested in any dangling state, you can just prune all unreachable
objects:
$ git prune
and they’ll be gone. But you should only run ”git prune” on a quiescent repository —it’s kind of like doing
a filesystem fsck recovery: you don’t want to do that while the filesystem is mounted.
(The same is true of ”git-fsck” itself, btw, but since git-fsck never actually changes the repository, it
just reports on what it found, git-fsck itself is never ”dangerous” to run. Running it while somebody is
actually changing the repository can cause confusing and scary messages, but it won’t actually do anything
bad. In contrast, running ”git prune” while somebody is actively changing the repository is a BAD idea).
$ git-fsck --full
broken link from tree 2d9263c6d23595e7cb2a21e5ebbb53655278dff8
to blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200
missing blob 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200
(Typically there will be some ”dangling object” messages too, but they aren’t interesting.)
Now you know that blob 4b9458b3 is missing, and that the tree 2d9263c6 points to it. If you could
find just one copy of that missing blob object, possibly in some other repository, you could move it into
.git/objects/4b/9458b3 . . . and be done. Suppose you can’t. You can still examine the tree that pointed
to it with git-ls-tree(1), which might output something like:
So now you know that the missing blob was the data for a file named ”myfile”. And chances are you can
also identify the directory —let’s say it’s in ”somedirectory”. If you’re lucky the missing copy might be
the same as the copy you have checked out in your working tree at ”somedirectory/myfile”; you can test
whether that’s right with git-hash-object(1):
which will create and store a blob object with the contents of somedirectory/myfile, and output the sha1
of that object. if you’re extremely lucky it might be 4b9458b3786228369c63936db65827de3cc06200, in
which case you’ve guessed right, and the corruption is fixed!
Otherwise, you need more information. How do you tell which version of the file has been lost?
The easiest way to do this is with:
Because you’re asking for raw output, you’ll now get something like
commit abc
Author:
Date:
...
:100644 100644 4b9458b... newsha... M somedirectory/myfile
commit xyz
Author:
Date:
...
:100644 100644 oldsha... 4b9458b... M somedirectory/myfile
This tells you that the immediately preceding version of the file was ”newsha”, and that the immediately
following version was ”oldsha”. You also know the commit messages that went with the change from oldsha
to 4b9458b and with the change from 4b9458b to newsha.
If you’ve been committing small enough changes, you may now have a good shot at reconstructing the
contents of the in-between state 4b9458b.
If you can do that, you can now recreate the missing object with
and just looked for the sha of the missing object (4b9458b..) in that whole thing. It’s up to you - git does
have a lot of information, it is just missing one particular blob version.
Note that in older documentation you may see the index called the ”current directory cache” or just the
”cache”. It has three important properties:
1. The index contains all the information necessary to generate a single (uniquely determined) tree object.
For example, running git-commit(1) generates this tree object from the index, stores it in the object
database, and uses it as the tree object associated with the new commit.
2. The index enables fast comparisons between the tree object it defines and the working tree. It does
this by storing some additional data for each entry (such as the last modified time). This data is not
displayed above, and is not stored in the created tree object, but it can be used to determine quickly
which files in the working directory differ from what was stored in the index, and thus save git from
having to read all of the data from such files to look for changes.
3. It can 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. We saw in the section 3.7.1 (p. 21) called ”Getting conflict-resolution
help during a merge” that during a merge the index can store multiple versions of a single file (called
”stages”). The third column in the git-ls-files(1) output above is the stage number, and will take
on values other than 0 for files with merge conflicts.
The index is thus a sort of temporary staging area, which is filled with a tree which you are in the process
of working on.
If you blow the index away entirely, you generally haven’t lost any information as long as you have the name
of the tree that it described.
8 Submodules
Large projects are often composed of smaller, self-contained modules. For example, an embedded Linux
distribution’s source tree would include every piece of software in the distribution with some local modifi-
cations; a movie player might need to build against a specific, known-working version of a decompression
library; several independent programs might all share the same build scripts.
With centralized revision control systems this is often accomplished by including every module in one single
repository. Developers can check out all modules or only the modules they need to work with. They can
even modify files across several modules in a single commit while moving things around or updating APIs
and translations.
Git does not allow partial checkouts, so duplicating this approach in Git would force developers to keep
a local copy of modules they are not interested in touching. Commits in an enormous checkout would be
slower than you’d expect as Git would have to scan every directory for changes. If modules have a lot of
local history, clones would take forever.
On the plus side, distributed revision control systems can much better integrate with external sources. In
a centralized model, a single arbitrary snapshot of the external project is exported from its own revision
control and then imported into the local revision control on a vendor branch. All the history is hidden.
With distributed revision control you can clone the entire external history and much more easily follow
development and re-merge local changes.
Git’s submodule support allows a repository to contain, as a subdirectory, a checkout of an external project.
Submodules maintain their own identity; the submodule support just stores the submodule repository loca-
tion and commit ID, so other developers who clone the containing project (”superproject”) can easily clone
all the submodules at the same revision. Partial checkouts of the superproject are possible: you can tell Git
to clone none, some or all of the submodules.
The git-submodule(1) command is available since Git 1.5.3. Users with Git 1.5.2 can look up the submodule
commits in the repository and manually check them out; earlier versions won’t recognize the submodules at
all.
To see how submodule support works, create (for example) four example repositories that can be used later
as a submodule:
$ mkdir ~/git
$ cd ~/git
$ for i in a b c d
do
mkdir $i
cd $i
git init
echo "module $i" > $i.txt
git add $i.txt
git commit -m "Initial commit, submodule $i"
cd ..
done
$ mkdir super
$ cd super
$ git init
$ for i in a b c d
do
git submodule add ~/git/$i
done
Note: Do not use local URLs here if you plan to publish your superproject!
See what files git submodule created:
$ ls -a
. .. .git .gitmodules a b c d
• It clones the submodule under the current directory and by default checks out the master branch.
• It adds the submodule’s clone path to the gitmodules(5) file and adds this file to the index, ready to
be committed.
• It adds the submodule’s current commit ID to the index, ready to be committed.
$ cd ..
$ git clone super cloned
$ cd cloned
$ ls -a a
. ..
$ git submodule status
-d266b9873ad50488163457f025db7cdd9683d88b a
-e81d457da15309b4fef4249aba9b50187999670d b
-c1536a972b9affea0f16e0680ba87332dc059146 c
-d96249ff5d57de5de093e6baff9e0aafa5276a74 d
Note: The commit object names shown above would be different for you, but they should match the HEAD
commit object names of your repositories. You can check it by running git ls-remote ../a.
Pulling down the submodules is a two-step process. First run git submodule init to add the submodule
repository URLs to .git/config:
Now use git submodule update to clone the repositories and check out the commits specified in the super-
project:
One major difference between git submodule update and git submodule add is that git submodule update
checks out a specific commit, rather than the tip of a branch. It’s like checking out a tag: the head is
detached, so you’re not working on a branch.
$ git branch
* (no branch)
master
If you want to make a change within a submodule and you have a detached head, then you should create
or checkout a branch, make your changes, publish the change within the submodule, and then update the
superproject to reference the new commit:
or
then
You have to run git submodule update after git pull if you want to update submodules, too.
$ cd ~/git/super/a
$ echo i added another line to this file >> a.txt
$ git commit -a -m "doing it wrong this time"
$ cd ..
$ git add a
$ git commit -m "Updated submodule a again."
$ git push
$ cd ~/git/cloned
$ git pull
$ git submodule update
error: pathspec ’261dfac35cb99d380eb966e102c1197139f7fa24’ did not match any file(s) known to git.
Did you forget to ’git add’?
Unable to checkout ’261dfac35cb99d380eb966e102c1197139f7fa24’ in submodule path ’a’
You also should not rewind branches in a submodule beyond commits that were ever recorded in any
superproject.
It’s not safe to run git submodule update if you’ve made and committed changes within a submodule without
checking out a branch first. They will be silently overwritten:
$ cat a.txt
module a
$ echo line added from private2 >> a.txt
$ git commit -a -m "line added inside private2"
$ cd ..
$ git submodule update
Submodule path ’a’: checked out ’d266b9873ad50488163457f025db7cdd9683d88b’
$ cd a
$ cat a.txt
module a
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, 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-index 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 git-update-index --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.
The previously introduced git-add(1) is just a wrapper for git-update-index(1).
$ git 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:
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.
$ git-checkout-index filename
or, if you want to check out all of the index, use -a.
NOTE! git-checkout-index 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:
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.
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:
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).
git-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 pointed at by .git/HEAD,
so that we can always see what the last committed state was.
Here is an ASCII art by Jon Loeliger that illustrates how various pieces fit together.
commit-tree
commit obj
+----+
| |
| |
V V
+-----------+
| Object DB |
| Backing |
| Store |
+-----------+
^
write-tree | |
tree obj | |
| | read-tree
| | tree obj
V
+-----------+
| Index |
| "cache" |
+-----------+
update-index ^
blob obj | |
| |
checkout-index -u | | checkout-index
stat | | blob obj
V
+-----------+
| Working |
| Directory |
+-----------+
$ git-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
to show its contents. NOTE! Trees have binary content, and as a result there is a special helper for showing
that content, called git-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
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)
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 tree, and
the two ”result” trees, aka the branches you want to merge), you do a ”merge” read into the index. This will
complain if it has to 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
which will do all trivial merge operations for you directly in the index file, and you can just write the result
out with git-write-tree.
Each line of the git-ls-files --unmerged output begins with the blob mode bits, blob SHA1, stage number,
and the filename. The stage number is git’s way to say which tree it came from: stage 1 corresponds to
$orig tree, stage 2 HEAD tree, and stage3 $target tree.
Earlier we said that trivial merges are done inside git-read-tree -m. For example, if the file did not change
from $orig to HEAD nor $target, or if the file changed from $orig to HEAD and $orig to $target the same
way, obviously the final outcome is what is in HEAD. What the above example shows is that file hello.c was
changed from $orig to HEAD and $orig to $target in a different way. You could resolve this by running
your favorite 3-way merge program, e.g. diff3, merge, or git’s own merge-file, on the blob objects from these
three stages yourself, like this:
This would leave the merge result in hello.c~2 file, along with conflict markers if there are conflicts. After
verifying the merge result makes sense, you can tell git what the final merge result for this file is by:
$ mv -f hello.c~2 hello.c
$ git-update-index hello.c
When a path is in unmerged state, running git-update-index for that path tells git to mark the path
resolved.
The above is the description of a git merge at the lowest level, to help you understand what conceptually
happens under the hood. In practice, nobody, not even git itself, uses three git-cat-file for this. There
is git-merge-index program that extracts the stages to temporary files and calls a ”merge” script on it:
and that is what higher level git merge -s resolve is implemented with.
10 Hacking git
This chapter covers internal details of the git implementation which probably only git developers need to
understand.
The initial revision lays the foundation for almost everything git has today, but is small enough to read in
one sitting.
Note that terminology has changed since that revision. For example, the README in that revision uses the
word ”changeset” to describe what we now call a commit.
Also, we do not call it ”cache” any more, but ”index”, however, the file is still called cache.h. Remark:
Not much reason to change it now, especially since there is no good single name for it anyway, because it is
basically the header file which is included by all of Git’s C sources.
If you grasp the ideas in that initial commit, you should check out a more recent version and skim cache.h,
object.h and commit.h.
In the early days, Git (in the tradition of UNIX) was a bunch of programs which were extremely simple,
and which you used in scripts, piping the output of one into another. This turned out to be good for initial
development, since it was easier to test new things. However, recently many of these parts have become
builtins, and some of the core has been ”libified”, i.e. put into libgit.a for performance, portability reasons,
and to avoid code duplication.
By now, you know what the index is (and find the corresponding data structures in cache.h), and that
there are just a couple of object types (blobs, trees, commits and tags) which inherit their common structure
from struct object, which is their first member (and thus, you can cast e.g. (struct object *) commit to
achieve the same as &commit->object, i.e. get at the object name and flags).
Now is a good point to take a break to let this information sink in.
Next step: get familiar with the object naming. Read the section 2.2 (p. 12) called ”Naming commits”. There
are quite a few ways to name an object (and not only revisions!). All of these are handled in sha1_name.c.
Just have a quick look at the function get_sha1(). A lot of the special handling is done by functions like
get_sha1_basic() or the likes.
This is just to get you into the groove for the most libified part of Git: the revision walker.
Basically, the initial version of git log was a shell script:
Sometimes, more than one builtin is contained in one source file. For example, cmd_whatchanged() and
cmd_log() both reside in builtin-log.c, since they share quite a bit of code. In that case, the commands
which are not named like the .c file in which they live have to be listed in BUILT_INS in the Makefile.
git log looks more complicated in C than it does in the original script, but that allows for a much greater
flexibility and performance.
Here again it is a good point to take a pause.
Lesson three is: study the code. Really, it is the best way to learn about the organization of Git (after you
know the basic concepts).
So, think about something which you are interested in, say, ”how can I access a blob just knowing the object
name of it?”. The first step is to find a Git command with which you can do it. In this example, it is either
git show or git cat-file.
For the sake of clarity, let’s stay with git cat-file, because it
• is plumbing, and
• was around even in the initial commit (it literally went only through some 20 revisions as cat-file.c,
was renamed to builtin-cat-file.c when made a builtin, and then saw less than 10 versions).
So, look into builtin-cat-file.c, search for cmd_cat_file() and look what it does.
git_config(git_default_config);
if (argc != 3)
usage("git-cat-file [-t|-s|-e|-p|<type>] <sha1>");
if (get_sha1(argv[2], sha1))
die("Not a valid object name %s", argv[2]);
Let’s skip over the obvious details; the only really interesting part here is the call to get_sha1(). It tries to
interpret argv[2] as an object name, and if it refers to an object which is present in the current repository,
it writes the resulting SHA-1 into the variable sha1.
Two things are interesting here:
• get_sha1() returns 0 on success . This might surprise some new Git hackers, but there is a long
tradition in UNIX to return different negative numbers in case of different errors —and 0 on success.
• the variable sha1 in the function signature of get_sha1() is unsigned char *, but is actually expected
to be a pointer to unsigned char[20]. This variable will contain the 160-bit SHA-1 of the given
commit. Note that whenever a SHA-1 is passed as unsigned char *, it is the binary representation,
as opposed to the ASCII representation in hex characters, which is passed as char *.
case 0:
buf = read_object_with_reference(sha1, argv[1], &size, NULL);
This is how you read a blob (actually, not only a blob, but any type of object). To know how the
function read_object_with_reference() actually works, find the source code for it (something like git
grep read_object_with — grep ":[a-z]" in the git repository), and read the source.
To find out how the result can be used, just read on in cmd_cat_file():
Sometimes, you do not know where to look for a feature. In many such cases, it helps to search through the
output of git log, and then git show the corresponding commit.
Example: If you know that there was some test case for git bundle, but do not remember where it was (yes,
you could git grep bundle t/, but that does not illustrate the point!):
In the pager (less), just search for ”bundle”, go a few lines back, and see that it is in commit 18449ab0
. . . Now just copy this object name, and paste it into the command line
Voila.
Another example: Find out what to do in order to make some script a builtin:
You see, Git is actually the best tool to find out about the source of Git itself!
11 GIT Glossary
alternate object database Via the alternates mechanism, a repository can inherit part of its object
database from another object database, which is called ”alternate”.
bare repository A bare repository is normally an appropriately named directory with a .git suffix that
does not have a locally checked-out copy of any of the files under revision control. That is, all of the
git administrative and control files that would normally be present in the hidden .git sub-directory
are directly present in the repository .git directory instead, and no other files are present and checked
out. Usually publishers of public repositories make bare repositories available.
blob object Untyped object, e.g. the contents of a file.
branch A ”branch” is an active line of development. The most recent commit on a branch is referred to
as the tip of that branch. The tip of the branch is referenced by a branch head, which moves forward
as additional development is done on the branch. A single git repository can track an arbitrary number
of branches, but your working tree is associated with just one of them (the ”current” or ”checked out”
branch), and HEAD points to that branch.
cache Obsolete for: index.
chain A list of objects, where each object in the list contains a reference to its successor (for example, the
successor of a commit could be one of its parents).
changeset BitKeeper/cvsps speak for ”commit”. Since git does not store changes, but states, it really
does not make sense to use the term ”changesets” with git.
checkout The action of updating the working tree to a revision which was stored in the object database.
cherry-picking In SCM jargon, ”cherry pick” means to choose a subset of changes out of a series of
changes (typically commits) and record them as a new series of changes on top of a different codebase.
In GIT, this is performed by the ”git cherry-pick” command to extract the change introduced by an
existing commit and to record it based on the tip of the current branch as a new commit.
clean A working tree is clean, if it corresponds to the revision referenced by the current head. Also see
”dirty”.
commit As a noun: A single point in the git history; the entire history of a project is represented as a
set of interrelated commits. The word ”commit” is often used by git in the same places other revision
control systems use the words ”revision” or ”version”. Also used as a short hand for commit object.
As a verb: The action of storing a new snapshot of the project’s state in the git history, by creating
a new commit representing the current state of the index and advancing HEAD to point at the new
commit.
commit object An object which contains the information about a particular revision, such as parents,
committer, author, date and the tree object which corresponds to the top directory of the stored
revision.
core git Fundamental data structures and utilities of git. Exposes only limited source code management
tools.
DAG Directed acyclic graph. The commit objects form a directed acyclic graph, because they have
parents (directed), and the graph of commit objects is acyclic (there is no chain which begins and ends
with the same object).
dangling object An unreachable object which is not reachable even from other unreachable objects; a
dangling object has no references to it from any reference or object in the repository.
detached HEAD Normally the HEAD stores the name of a branch. However, git also allows you to
check out an arbitrary commit that isn’t necessarily the tip of any particular branch. In this case
HEAD is said to be ”detached”.
merge As a verb: To bring the contents of another branch (possibly from an external repository) into
the current branch. In the case where the merged-in branch is from a different repository, this is
done by first fetching the remote branch and then merging the result into the current branch. This
combination of fetch and merge operations is called a pull. Merging is performed by an automatic
process that identifies changes made since the branches diverged, and then applies all those changes
together. In cases where changes conflict, manual intervention may be required to complete the merge.
As a noun: unless it is a fast forward, a successful merge results in the creation of a new commit
representing the result of the merge, and having as parents the tips of the merged branches. This
commit is referred to as a ”merge commit”, or sometimes just a ”merge”.
object The unit of storage in git. It is uniquely identified by the SHA1 of its contents. Consequently, an
object can not be changed.
object database Stores a set of ”objects”, and an individual object is identified by its object name. The
objects usually live in $GIT_DIR/objects/.
object name The unique identifier of an object. The hash of the object’s contents using the Secure Hash
Algorithm 1 and usually represented by the 40 character hexadecimal encoding of the hash of the
object.
object type One of the identifiers ”commit”,”tree”,”tag” or ”blob” describing the type of an object.
octopus To merge more than two branches. Also denotes an intelligent predator.
origin The default upstream repository. Most projects have at least one upstream project which they
track. By default origin is used for that purpose. New upstream updates will be fetched into remote
tracking branches named origin/name-of-upstream-branch, which you can see using ”git branch -r”.
pack A set of objects which have been compressed into one file (to save space or to transmit them
efficiently).
pack index The list of identifiers, and other information, of the objects in a pack, to assist in efficiently
accessing the contents of a pack.
parent A commit object contains a (possibly empty) list of the logical predecessor(s) in the line of devel-
opment, i.e. its parents.
pickaxe The term pickaxe refers to an option to the diffcore routines that help select changes that add or
delete a given text string. With the --pickaxe-all option, it can be used to view the full changeset
that introduced or removed, say, a particular line of text. See git-diff(1).
porcelain Cute name for programs and program suites depending on core git, presenting a high level
access to core git. Porcelains expose more of a SCM interface than the plumbing.
pull Pulling a branch means to fetch it and merge it. See also git-pull(1).
push Pushing a branch means to get the branch’s head ref from a remote repository, find out if it is a
direct ancestor to the branch’s local head ref, and in that case, putting all objects, which are reachable
from the local head ref, and which are missing from the remote repository, into the remote object
database, and updating the remote head ref. If the remote head is not an ancestor to the local head,
the push fails.
reachable All of the ancestors of a given commit are said to be ”reachable” from that commit. More
generally, one object is reachable from another if we can reach the one from the other by a chain that
follows tags to whatever they tag, commits to their parents or trees, and trees to the trees or blobs
that they contain.
rebase To reapply a series of changes from a branch to a different base, and reset the head of that branch
to the result.
ref A 40-byte hex representation of a SHA1 or a name that denotes a particular object. These may be
stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/.
reflog A reflog shows the local ”history” of a ref. In other words, it can tell you what the 3rd last revision
in this repository was, and what was the current state in this repository, yesterday 9:14pm. See
git-reflog(1) for details.
refspec A ”refspec” is used by fetch and push to describe the mapping between remote ref and local ref.
They are combined with a colon in the format <src>:<dst>, preceded by an optional plus sign, +. For
example: git fetch $URL refs/heads/master:refs/heads/origin means ”grab the master branch
head from the $URL and store it as my origin branch head”. And
git push $URL refs/heads/master:refs/heads/to-upstream means ”publish my master branch
head as to-upstream branch at $URL”. See also git-push(1).
repository A collection of refs together with an object database containing all objects which are reachable
from the refs, possibly accompanied by meta data from one or more porcelains. A repository can share
an object database with other repositories via alternates mechanism.
resolve The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge left behind.
revision A particular state of files and directories which was stored in the object database. It is referenced
by a commit object.
rewind To throw away part of the development, i.e. to assign the head to an earlier revision.
shallow repository A shallow repository has an incomplete history some of whose commits have parents
cauterized away (in other words, git is told to pretend that these commits do not have the parents,
even though they are recorded in the commit object). This is sometimes useful when you are interested
only in the recent history of a project even though the real history recorded in the upstream is much
larger. A shallow repository is created by giving the --depth option to git-clone(1), and its history
can be later deepened with git-fetch(1).
symref Symbolic reference: instead of containing the SHA1 id itself, it is of the format ref: refs/some/thing
and when referenced, it recursively dereferences to this reference. HEAD is a prime example of a symref.
Symbolic references are manipulated with the git-symbolic-ref(1) command.
tag A ref pointing to a tag or commit object. In contrast to a head, a tag is not changed by a commit.
Tags (not tag objects) are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/tags/. A git tag has nothing to do with a Lisp
tag (which would be called an object type in git’s context). A tag is most typically used to mark a
particular point in the commit ancestry chain.
tag object An object containing a ref pointing to another object, which can contain a message just like a
commit object. It can also contain a (PGP) signature, in which case it is called a ”signed tag object”.
topic branch A regular git branch that is used by a developer to identify a conceptual line of development.
Since branches are very easy and inexpensive, it is often desirable to have several small branches that
each contain very well defined concepts or small incremental yet related changes.
tracking branch A regular git branch that is used to follow changes from another repository. A tracking
branch should not contain direct modifications or have local commits made to it. A tracking branch
can usually be identified as the right-hand-side ref in a Pull: refspec.
tree Either a working tree, or a tree object together with the dependent blob and tree objects (i.e. a
stored representation of a working tree).
tree object An object containing a list of file names and modes along with refs to the associated blob
and/or tree objects. A tree is equivalent to a directory.
tree-ish A ref pointing to either a commit object, a tree object, or a tag object pointing to a tag or
commit or tree object.
unreachable object An object which is not reachable from a branch, tag, or any other reference.
working tree The tree of actual checked out files. The working tree is normally equal to the HEAD plus
any local changes that you have made but not yet committed.
Update and examine branches from the repository you cloned from:
Fetch a branch from a different repository, and give it a new name in your repository:
Select file contents to include in the next commit, then make the commit:
11.5 Merging
$ git merge test # merge branch "test" into the current branch
$ git pull git://example.com/project.git master
# fetch and merge in remote branch
$ git pull . test # equivalent to git merge test
Fetch a branch in a different git repository, then merge into the current branch:
Store the fetched branch into a local branch before merging into the current branch:
After creating commits on a local branch, update the remote branch with your commits:
$ git fsck
$ git gc
• It must be readable in order, from beginning to end, by someone intelligent with a basic grasp of the
UNIX command line, but without any special knowledge of git. If necessary, any other prerequisites
should be specifically mentioned as they arise.
• Whenever possible, section headings should clearly describe the task they explain how to do, in language
that requires no more knowledge than necessary: for example, ”importing patches into a project” rather
than ”the git-am command”
Think about how to create a clear chapter dependency graph that will allow people to get to important
topics without necessarily reading everything in between.
Scan Documentation/ for other stuff left out; in particular:
• howto’s
• some of technical/?
• hooks
• list of commands in git(1)
71