<div class="sectionbody">\r
<div class="verseblock">\r
<div class="content"><em>git-am</em> [--signoff] [--dotest=<dir>] [--utf8 | --no-utf8] [--binary] [--3way]\r
- [--interactive] [--whitespace=<option>] <mbox>…\r
+ [--interactive] [--whitespace=<option>] [-C<n>] [-p<n>]\r
+ <mbox>…\r
<em>git-am</em> [--skip | --resolved]</div></div>\r
</div>\r
<h2>DESCRIPTION</h2>\r
</p>\r
</dd>\r
<dt>\r
--C<n>\r
+-C<n>, -p<n>\r
</dt>\r
<dd>\r
<p>\r
- This flag is passed to the <tt>git-apply</tt> program that applies\r
+ These flag are passed to the <tt>git-apply</tt> program that applies\r
the patch.\r
</p>\r
</dd>\r
</div>\r
<div id="footer">\r
<div id="footer-text">\r
-Last updated 12-Feb-2007 04:14:05 UTC\r
+Last updated 12-Feb-2007 07:15:19 UTC\r
</div>\r
</div>\r
</body>\r
--------
[verse]
'git-am' [--signoff] [--dotest=<dir>] [--utf8 | --no-utf8] [--binary] [--3way]
- [--interactive] [--whitespace=<option>] <mbox>...
+ [--interactive] [--whitespace=<option>] [-C<n>] [-p<n>]
+ <mbox>...
'git-am' [--skip | --resolved]
DESCRIPTION
This flag is passed to the `git-apply` program that applies
the patch.
--C<n>::
- This flag is passed to the `git-apply` program that applies
+-C<n>, -p<n>::
+ These flag are passed to the `git-apply` program that applies
the patch.
--interactive::
</p>\r
</dd>\r
<dt>\r
+--export-pack-edges=<file>\r
+</dt>\r
+<dd>\r
+<p>\r
+ After creating a packfile, print a line of data to\r
+ <file> listing the filename of the packfile and the last\r
+ commit on each branch that was written to that packfile.\r
+ This information may be useful after importing projects\r
+ whose total object set exceeds the 4 GiB packfile limit,\r
+ as these commits can be used as edge points during calls\r
+ to <a href="git-pack-objects.html">git-pack-objects(1)</a>.\r
+</p>\r
+</dd>\r
+<dt>\r
--quiet\r
</dt>\r
<dd>\r
<p>The branch LRU builtin to fast-import tends to behave very well, and the\r
cost of activating an inactive branch is so low that bouncing around\r
between branches has virtually no impact on import performance.</p>\r
+<h3>Handling Renames</h3>\r
+<p>When importing a renamed file or directory, simply delete the old\r
+name(s) and modify the new name(s) during the corresponding commit.\r
+Git performs rename detection after-the-fact, rather than explicitly\r
+during a commit.</p>\r
<h3>Use Tag Fixup Branches</h3>\r
<p>Some other SCM systems let the user create a tag from multiple\r
files which are not from the same commit/changeset. Or to create\r
</div>\r
<div id="footer">\r
<div id="footer-text">\r
-Last updated 09-Feb-2007 08:38:34 UTC\r
+Last updated 12-Feb-2007 07:15:19 UTC\r
</div>\r
</div>\r
</body>\r
Frontends can use this file to validate imports after they
have been completed.
+--export-pack-edges=<file>::
+ After creating a packfile, print a line of data to
+ <file> listing the filename of the packfile and the last
+ commit on each branch that was written to that packfile.
+ This information may be useful after importing projects
+ whose total object set exceeds the 4 GiB packfile limit,
+ as these commits can be used as edge points during calls
+ to gitlink:git-pack-objects[1].
+
--quiet::
Disable all non-fatal output, making fast-import silent when it
is successful. This option disables the output shown by
cost of activating an inactive branch is so low that bouncing around
between branches has virtually no impact on import performance.
+Handling Renames
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+When importing a renamed file or directory, simply delete the old
+name(s) and modify the new name(s) during the corresponding commit.
+Git performs rename detection after-the-fact, rather than explicitly
+during a commit.
+
Use Tag Fixup Branches
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some other SCM systems let the user create a tag from multiple
</div>\r
<h2>SYNOPSIS</h2>\r
<div class="sectionbody">\r
-<p><em>git-rebase</em> [-v] [--merge] [-CNUM] [--onto <newbase>] <upstream> [<branch>]</p>\r
+<p><em>git-rebase</em> [-v] [--merge] [-C<n>] [--onto <newbase>] <upstream> [<branch>]</p>\r
<p><em>git-rebase</em> --continue | --skip | --abort</p>\r
</div>\r
<h2>DESCRIPTION</h2>\r
</div>\r
<div id="footer">\r
<div id="footer-text">\r
-Last updated 09-Feb-2007 08:38:36 UTC\r
+Last updated 12-Feb-2007 07:15:21 UTC\r
</div>\r
</div>\r
</body>\r
SYNOPSIS
--------
-'git-rebase' [-v] [--merge] [-CNUM] [--onto <newbase>] <upstream> [<branch>]
+'git-rebase' [-v] [--merge] [-C<n>] [--onto <newbase>] <upstream> [<branch>]
'git-rebase' --continue | --skip | --abort
<pre><tt>signingkey = <gpg-key-id></tt></pre>\r
</div></div>\r
</div>\r
+<h2>DISCUSSION</h2>\r
+<div class="sectionbody">\r
+<h3>On Re-tagging</h3>\r
+<p>What should you do when you tag a wrong commit and you would\r
+want to re-tag?</p>\r
+<p>If you never pushed anything out, just re-tag it. Use "-f" to\r
+replace the old one. And you're done.</p>\r
+<p>But if you have pushed things out (or others could just read\r
+your repository directly), then others will have already seen\r
+the old tag. In that case you can do one of two things:</p>\r
+<ol>\r
+<li>\r
+<p>\r
+The sane thing.\r
+Just admit you screwed up, and use a different name. Others have\r
+already seen one tag-name, and if you keep the same name, you\r
+may be in the situation that two people both have "version X",\r
+but they actually have <em>different</em> "X"'s. So just call it "X.1"\r
+and be done with it.\r
+</p>\r
+</li>\r
+<li>\r
+<p>\r
+The insane thing.\r
+You really want to call the new version "X" too, <em>even though</em>\r
+others have already seen the old one. So just use "git tag -f"\r
+again, as if you hadn't already published the old one.\r
+</p>\r
+</li>\r
+</ol>\r
+<p>However, Git does <strong>not</strong> (and it should not)change tags behind\r
+users back. So if somebody already got the old tag, doing a "git\r
+pull" on your tree shouldn't just make them overwrite the old\r
+one.</p>\r
+<p>If somebody got a release tag from you, you cannot just change\r
+the tag for them by updating your own one. This is a big\r
+security issue, in that people MUST be able to trust their\r
+tag-names. If you really want to do the insane thing, you need\r
+to just fess up to it, and tell people that you messed up. You\r
+can do that by making a very public announcement saying:</p>\r
+<div class="listingblock">\r
+<div class="content">\r
+<pre><tt>Ok, I messed up, and I pushed out an earlier version tagged as X. I\r
+then fixed something, and retagged the *fixed* tree as X again.\r
+\r
+If you got the wrong tag, and want the new one, please delete\r
+the old one and fetch the new one by doing:\r
+\r
+ git tag -d X\r
+ git fetch origin tag X\r
+\r
+to get my updated tag.\r
+\r
+You can test which tag you have by doing\r
+\r
+ git rev-parse X\r
+\r
+which should return 0123456789abcdef.. if you have the new version.\r
+\r
+Sorry for inconvenience.</tt></pre>\r
+</div></div>\r
+<p>Does this seem a bit complicated? It <strong>should</strong> be. There is no\r
+way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind peoples\r
+backs. People need to know that their tags might have been\r
+changed.</p>\r
+<h3>On Automatic following</h3>\r
+<p>If you are following somebody else's tree, you are most likely\r
+using tracking branches (<tt>refs/heads/origin</tt> in traditional\r
+layout, or <tt>refs/remotes/origin/master</tt> in the separate-remote\r
+layout). You usually want the tags from the other end.</p>\r
+<p>On the other hand, if you are fetching because you would want a\r
+one-shot merge from somebody else, you typically do not want to\r
+get tags from there. This happens more often for people near\r
+the toplevel but not limited to them. Mere mortals when pulling\r
+from each other do not necessarily want to automatically get\r
+private anchor point tags from the other person.</p>\r
+<p>You would notice "please pull" messages on the mailing list says\r
+repo URL and branch name alone. This is designed to be easily\r
+cut&pasted to "git fetch" command line:</p>\r
+<div class="listingblock">\r
+<div class="content">\r
+<pre><tt>Linus, please pull from\r
+\r
+ git://git..../proj.git master\r
+\r
+to get the following updates...</tt></pre>\r
+</div></div>\r
+<p>becomes:</p>\r
+<div class="listingblock">\r
+<div class="content">\r
+<pre><tt>$ git pull git://git..../proj.git master</tt></pre>\r
+</div></div>\r
+<p>In such a case, you do not want to automatically follow other's\r
+tags.</p>\r
+<p>One important aspect of git is it is distributed, and being\r
+distributed largely means there is no inherent "upstream" or\r
+"downstream" in the system. On the face of it, the above\r
+example might seem to indicate that the tag namespace is owned\r
+by upper echelon of people and tags only flow downwards, but\r
+that is not the case. It only shows that the usage pattern\r
+determines who are interested in whose tags.</p>\r
+<p>A one-shot pull is a sign that a commit history is now crossing\r
+the boundary between one circle of people (e.g. "people who are\r
+primarily interested in networking part of the kernel") who may\r
+have their own set of tags (e.g. "this is the third release\r
+candidate from the networking group to be proposed for general\r
+consumption with 2.6.21 release") to another circle of people\r
+(e.g. "people who integrate various subsystem improvements").\r
+The latter are usually not interested in the detailed tags used\r
+internally in the former group (that is what "internal" means).\r
+That is why it is desirable not to follow tags automatically in\r
+this case.</p>\r
+<p>It may well be that among networking people, they may want to\r
+exchange the tags internal to their group, but in that workflow\r
+they are most likely tracking with each other's progress by\r
+having tracking branches. Again, the heuristic to automatically\r
+follow such tags is a good thing.</p>\r
+</div>\r
<h2>Author</h2>\r
<div class="sectionbody">\r
<p>Written by Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,\r
</div>\r
<div id="footer">\r
<div id="footer-text">\r
-Last updated 28-Jan-2007 10:29:11 UTC\r
+Last updated 12-Feb-2007 07:15:21 UTC\r
</div>\r
</div>\r
</body>\r
[user]
signingkey = <gpg-key-id>
+
+DISCUSSION
+----------
+
+On Re-tagging
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+What should you do when you tag a wrong commit and you would
+want to re-tag?
+
+If you never pushed anything out, just re-tag it. Use "-f" to
+replace the old one. And you're done.
+
+But if you have pushed things out (or others could just read
+your repository directly), then others will have already seen
+the old tag. In that case you can do one of two things:
+
+. The sane thing.
+Just admit you screwed up, and use a different name. Others have
+already seen one tag-name, and if you keep the same name, you
+may be in the situation that two people both have "version X",
+but they actually have 'different' "X"'s. So just call it "X.1"
+and be done with it.
+
+. The insane thing.
+You really want to call the new version "X" too, 'even though'
+others have already seen the old one. So just use "git tag -f"
+again, as if you hadn't already published the old one.
+
+However, Git does *not* (and it should not)change tags behind
+users back. So if somebody already got the old tag, doing a "git
+pull" on your tree shouldn't just make them overwrite the old
+one.
+
+If somebody got a release tag from you, you cannot just change
+the tag for them by updating your own one. This is a big
+security issue, in that people MUST be able to trust their
+tag-names. If you really want to do the insane thing, you need
+to just fess up to it, and tell people that you messed up. You
+can do that by making a very public announcement saying:
+
+------------
+Ok, I messed up, and I pushed out an earlier version tagged as X. I
+then fixed something, and retagged the *fixed* tree as X again.
+
+If you got the wrong tag, and want the new one, please delete
+the old one and fetch the new one by doing:
+
+ git tag -d X
+ git fetch origin tag X
+
+to get my updated tag.
+
+You can test which tag you have by doing
+
+ git rev-parse X
+
+which should return 0123456789abcdef.. if you have the new version.
+
+Sorry for inconvenience.
+------------
+
+Does this seem a bit complicated? It *should* be. There is no
+way that it would be correct to just "fix" it behind peoples
+backs. People need to know that their tags might have been
+changed.
+
+
+On Automatic following
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If you are following somebody else's tree, you are most likely
+using tracking branches (`refs/heads/origin` in traditional
+layout, or `refs/remotes/origin/master` in the separate-remote
+layout). You usually want the tags from the other end.
+
+On the other hand, if you are fetching because you would want a
+one-shot merge from somebody else, you typically do not want to
+get tags from there. This happens more often for people near
+the toplevel but not limited to them. Mere mortals when pulling
+from each other do not necessarily want to automatically get
+private anchor point tags from the other person.
+
+You would notice "please pull" messages on the mailing list says
+repo URL and branch name alone. This is designed to be easily
+cut&pasted to "git fetch" command line:
+
+------------
+Linus, please pull from
+
+ git://git..../proj.git master
+
+to get the following updates...
+------------
+
+becomes:
+
+------------
+$ git pull git://git..../proj.git master
+------------
+
+In such a case, you do not want to automatically follow other's
+tags.
+
+One important aspect of git is it is distributed, and being
+distributed largely means there is no inherent "upstream" or
+"downstream" in the system. On the face of it, the above
+example might seem to indicate that the tag namespace is owned
+by upper echelon of people and tags only flow downwards, but
+that is not the case. It only shows that the usage pattern
+determines who are interested in whose tags.
+
+A one-shot pull is a sign that a commit history is now crossing
+the boundary between one circle of people (e.g. "people who are
+primarily interested in networking part of the kernel") who may
+have their own set of tags (e.g. "this is the third release
+candidate from the networking group to be proposed for general
+consumption with 2.6.21 release") to another circle of people
+(e.g. "people who integrate various subsystem improvements").
+The latter are usually not interested in the detailed tags used
+internally in the former group (that is what "internal" means).
+That is why it is desirable not to follow tags automatically in
+this case.
+
+It may well be that among networking people, they may want to
+exchange the tags internal to their group, but in that workflow
+they are most likely tracking with each other's progress by
+having tracking branches. Again, the heuristic to automatically
+follow such tags is a good thing.
+
+
Author
------
Written by Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
</div>\r
<div id="footer">\r
<div id="footer-text">\r
-Last updated 12-Feb-2007 04:14:07 UTC\r
+Last updated 12-Feb-2007 07:15:22 UTC\r
</div>\r
</div>\r
</body>\r
projects / git.git / commitdiff