Our documentation used to assume having files in .git/refs/*
directories was the only to have branches and tags, but that is not
true for quite some time.
* jc/tag-doc:
Documentation: do not mention .git/refs/* directories
It is an implementation detail that a new tag is created by adding a
file in the .git/refs/tags directory. The only thing the user needs
to know is that a "git tag" creates a ref in the refs/tags namespace,
and without "-f", it does not overwrite an existing tag.
Inspired by a report from 乙酸鋰 <ch3cooli@gmail.com>; I think I
caught all the existing mention in Documentation/ directory in the
tip of 1.7.9.X maintenance track, but we may have added new ones
since then.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Reword the misspelled "squelch" noticed by Hermann Gaustere to say
"omit", which would sit better anyway.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The default output from "fsck" is often overwhelmed by informational
message on dangling objects, especially if you do not repack often, and a
real error can easily be buried.
Add "--no-dangling" option to omit them, and update the user manual to
demonstrate its use.
Based on a patch by Clemens Buchacher, but reverted the part to change
the default to --no-dangling, which is unsuitable for the first patch.
The usual three-step procedure to break the backward compatibility over
time needs to happen on top of this, if we were to go in that direction.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
After the description and options, the fsck manpage contains
some discussion about what it does. Over time, this
discussion has become somewhat obsolete, both in content and
formatting. In particular:
1. There are many options now, so starting the discussion
with "It tests..." makes it unclear whether we are
talking about the last option, or about the tool in
general. Let's start a new "discussion" section and
make our antecedent more clear.
2. It gave an example for --unreachable using for-each-ref
to mention all of the heads, saying that it will do "a
_lot_ of verification". This is hopelessly out-of-date,
as giving no arguments will check much more (reflogs,
the index, non-head refs).
3. It goes on to mention tests "to be added" (like tree
object sorting). We now have these tests.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
fsck is usually a long process and it would be nice if it prints
progress from time to time.
Progress meter is not printed when --verbose is given because
--verbose prints a lot, there's no need for "alive" indicator.
Progress meter may provide "% complete" information but it would
be lost anyway in the flood of text.
Signed-off-by: Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
In git-fsck(1), there was a reference to the warning "<tree> has full
pathnames in it". This exact wording has not been used since 2005
(commit f1f0d0889e), when the wording was changed slightly. More
importantly, the description of that warning was useless, and there were
many other similar warning messages which were not document at all.
Since all these warnings are fairly obvious, there is no need for them
to be in the man page.
Signed-off-by: Mark Lodato <lodatom@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The documentation was quite inconsistent when spelling 'git cmd' if it
only refers to the program, not to some specific invocation syntax:
both 'git-cmd' and 'git cmd' spellings exist.
The current trend goes towards dashless forms, and there is precedent
in 647ac70 (git-svn.txt: stop using dash-form of commands.,
2009-07-07) to actively eliminate the dashed variants.
Replace 'git-cmd' with 'git cmd' throughout, except where git-shell,
git-cvsserver, git-upload-pack, git-receive-pack, and
git-upload-archive are concerned, because those really live in the
$PATH.
Linus and other git developers from the early days trained their fingers
to type the command, every once in a while even without thinking, to check
the consistency of the repository back when the lower core part of the git
was still being developed. Developers who wanted to make sure that git
correctly dealt with packfiles could deliberately trigger their creation
and checked them after they were created carefully, but loose objects are
the ones that are written by various commands from random codepaths. It
made some technical sense to have a mode that checked only loose objects
from the debugging point of view for that reason.
Even for git developers, there no longer is any reason to type "git fsck"
every five minutes these days, worried that some newly created objects
might be corrupt due to recent change to git.
The reason we did not make "--full" the default is probably we trust our
filesystems a bit too much. At least, we trusted filesystems more than we
trusted the lower core part of git that was under development.
Once a packfile is created and we always use it read-only, there didn't
seem to be much point in suspecting that the underlying filesystems or
disks may corrupt them in such a way that is not caught by the SHA-1
checksum over the entire packfile and per object checksum. That trust in
the filesystems might have been a good tradeoff between fsck performance
and reliability on platforms git was initially developed on and for, but
it may not be true anymore as we run on many more platforms these days.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The straightforward way with using 'cat .git/refs/heads/*' doesn't work
with packed refs as well as branches of the form topic/topic1. So let's
use git-for-each-ref for getting the heads' SHA1s in this example.
Signed-off-by: Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelberg@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Some manual pages use teletype font to set command names. We
change them to use italics, instead. This creates a visual
distinction between names of commands and command lines that
can be typed at the command line. It is also more consistent
with other man pages outside Git.
In this patch, the commands named are non-git commands like bash.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The names of git commands are not meant to be entered at the
commandline; they are just names. So we render them in italics,
as is usual for command names in manpages.
Using
doit () {
perl -e 'for (<>) { s/\`(git-[^\`.]*)\`/'\''\1'\''/g; print }'
}
for i in git*.txt config.txt diff*.txt blame*.txt fetch*.txt i18n.txt \
merge*.txt pretty*.txt pull*.txt rev*.txt urls*.txt
do
doit <"$i" >"$i+" && mv "$i+" "$i"
done
git diff
.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Following what appears to be the predominant style, format
names of commands and commandlines both as `teletype text`.
While we're at it, add articles ("a" and "the") in some
places, italicize the name of the command in the manual page
synopsis line, and add a comma or two where it seems appropriate.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Since the git-* commands are not installed in $(bindir), using
"git-command <parameters>" in examples in the documentation is
not a good idea. On the other hand, it is nice to be able to
refer to each command using one hyphenated word. (There is no
escaping it, anyway: man page names cannot have spaces in them.)
This patch retains the dash in naming an operation, command,
program, process, or action. Complete command lines that can
be entered at a shell (i.e., without options omitted) are
made to use the dashless form.
The changes consist only of replacing some spaces with hyphens
and vice versa. After a "s/ /-/g", the unpatched and patched
versions are identical.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@uchicago.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
As the "git" man page describes the "git" command at the end-user
level, it seems better to move it to man section 1.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Most users should be using git-gc instead of directly
calling prune. For those who really do want more information
on pruning, let's point them at git-fsck, which goes into
slightly more detail on reachability.
And since we're pointing users there, let's make sure
reflogs are mentioned in git-fsck(1).
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Between AsciiDoc 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, the following change was made to the stock
Asciidoc configuration:
@@ -149,7 +153,10 @@
# Inline macros.
# Backslash prefix required for escape processing.
# (?s) re flag for line spanning.
-(?su)[\\]?(?P<name>\w(\w|-)*?):(?P<target>\S*?)(\[(?P<attrlist>.*?)\])=
+
+# Explicit so they can be nested.
+(?su)[\\]?(?P<name>(http|https|ftp|file|mailto|callto|image|link)):(?P<target>\S*?)(\[(?P<attrlist>.*?)\])=
+
# Anchor: [[[id]]]. Bibliographic anchor.
(?su)[\\]?\[\[\[(?P<attrlist>[\w][\w-]*?)\]\]\]=anchor3
# Anchor: [[id,xreflabel]]
This default regex now matches explicit values, and unfortunately in this
case gitlink was being matched by just 'link', causing the wrong inline
macro template to be applied. By renaming the macro, we can avoid being
matched by the wrong regex.
Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When looking for a lost blob, it is much nicer to be able to grep
through .git/lost-found/other/* than to write an inefficient loop
over the file names. So write the contents of the dangling blobs,
not their object names.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
With this option, dangling objects are not only reported, but also
written to .git/lost-found/commit/ or .git/lost-found/other/. This
option implies '--full' and '--no-reflogs'.
'git fsck --lost-found' is meant as a replacement for git-lost-found.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This uses "git-apply --whitespace=strip" to fix whitespace errors that have
crept in to our source files over time. There are a few files that need
to have trailing whitespaces (most notably, test vectors). The results
still passes the test, and build result in Documentation/ area is unchanged.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
With --verbose, it gets really chatty now.
Signed-off-by: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Prior to 1.5.0 the git-lost-found utility was useful to locate
commits that were not referenced by any ref. These were often
amends, or resets, or tips of branches that had been deleted.
Being able to locate a 'lost' commit and recover it by creating a
new branch was a useful feature in those days.
Unfortunately 1.5.0 added the reflogs to the reachability analysis
performed by git-fsck, which means that most commits users would
consider to be lost are still reachable through a reflog. So most
(or all!) commits are reachable, and nothing gets output from
git-lost-found.
Now git-fsck can be told to ignore reflogs during its reachability
analysis, making git-lost-found useful again to locate commits
that are no longer referenced by a ref itself, but may still be
referenced by a reflog.
Signed-off-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
