From: Junio C Hamano <junio@hera.kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:44:51 +0000 (+0000)
Subject: Autogenerated HTML docs for v1.5.0-rc2-g8a816
X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=42b7867a76b70bb30e825bc111b7468bc3c43fa0;p=git.git

Autogenerated HTML docs for v1.5.0-rc2-g8a816
---

diff --git a/git-pack-refs.html b/git-pack-refs.html
index da7856c35..04f506b2d 100644
--- a/git-pack-refs.html
+++ b/git-pack-refs.html
@@ -290,6 +290,14 @@ traditional <tt>$GIT_DIR/refs</tt> hierarchy, it is looked up in this
 file and used if found.</p>
 <p>Subsequent updates to branches always creates new file under
 <tt>$GIT_DIR/refs</tt> hierarchy.</p>
+<p>A recommended practice to deal with a repository with too many
+refs is to pack its refs with <tt>--all --prune</tt> once, and
+occasionally run <tt>git-pack-refs --prune</tt>.  Tags are by
+definition stationary and are not expected to change.  Branch
+heads will be packed with the initial <tt>pack-refs --all</tt>, but
+only the currently active branch heads will become unpacked,
+and next <tt>pack-refs</tt> (without <tt>--all</tt>) will leave them
+unpacked.</p>
 </div>
 <h2>OPTIONS</h2>
 <div class="sectionbody">
@@ -299,7 +307,8 @@ file and used if found.</p>
 </dt>
 <dd>
 <p>
-The command by default packs all tags and leaves branch tips
+The command by default packs all tags and refs that are already
+packed, and leaves other refs
 alone.  This is because branches are expected to be actively
 developed and packing their tips does not help performance.
 This option causes branch tips to be packed as well.  Useful for
@@ -327,7 +336,7 @@ hierarchy after packing them.  This option tells it not to.
 </div>
 <div id="footer">
 <div id="footer-text">
-Last updated 09-Jan-2007 11:13:40 UTC
+Last updated 26-Jan-2007 09:44:40 UTC
 </div>
 </div>
 </body>
diff --git a/git-pack-refs.txt b/git-pack-refs.txt
index 464269fbb..a20fc7de4 100644
--- a/git-pack-refs.txt
+++ b/git-pack-refs.txt
@@ -29,12 +29,23 @@ file and used if found.
 Subsequent updates to branches always creates new file under
 `$GIT_DIR/refs` hierarchy.
 
+A recommended practice to deal with a repository with too many
+refs is to pack its refs with `--all --prune` once, and
+occasionally run `git-pack-refs \--prune`.  Tags are by
+definition stationary and are not expected to change.  Branch
+heads will be packed with the initial `pack-refs --all`, but
+only the currently active branch heads will become unpacked,
+and next `pack-refs` (without `--all`) will leave them
+unpacked.
+
+
 OPTIONS
 -------
 
 \--all::
 
-The command by default packs all tags and leaves branch tips
+The command by default packs all tags and refs that are already
+packed, and leaves other refs
 alone.  This is because branches are expected to be actively
 developed and packing their tips does not help performance.
 This option causes branch tips to be packed as well.  Useful for
diff --git a/git.html b/git.html
index fb3e9e35d..76c121c43 100644
--- a/git.html
+++ b/git.html
@@ -2285,7 +2285,7 @@ contributors on the git-list &lt;git@vger.kernel.org&gt;.</p>
 </div>
 <div id="footer">
 <div id="footer-text">
-Last updated 25-Jan-2007 02:23:50 UTC
+Last updated 26-Jan-2007 09:44:41 UTC
 </div>
 </div>
 </body>
diff --git a/howto-index.html b/howto-index.html
index 9310f262f..a1eaac2c5 100644
--- a/howto-index.html
+++ b/howto-index.html
@@ -268,6 +268,16 @@ people describing how they use git in their workflow.</p>
 <ul>
 <li>
 <p>
+<a href="howto/dangling-objects.txt">dangling-objects</a> by Linus Torvalds &lt;torvalds@linux-foundation.org&gt;
+</p>
+</li>
+</ul>
+<p>Linus describes what dangling objects are, when they
+are left behind, and how to view their relationship with branch
+heads in gitk</p>
+<ul>
+<li>
+<p>
 <a href="howto/isolate-bugs-with-bisect.txt">isolate-bugs-with-bisect</a> by Linus Torvalds &lt;torvalds () osdl ! org&gt;
 </p>
 </li>
@@ -365,7 +375,7 @@ as a Linux subsystem maintainer.</p>
 </div>
 <div id="footer">
 <div id="footer-text">
-Last updated 19-Jan-2007 00:37:41 UTC
+Last updated 26-Jan-2007 09:44:43 UTC
 </div>
 </div>
 </body>
diff --git a/howto-index.txt b/howto-index.txt
index c645e75c3..cd806a3b9 100644
--- a/howto-index.txt
+++ b/howto-index.txt
@@ -4,6 +4,13 @@ GIT Howto Index
 Here is a collection of mailing list postings made by various
 people describing how they use git in their workflow.
 
+* link:howto/dangling-objects.txt[dangling-objects] by Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
+
+Linus describes what dangling objects are, when they
+are left behind, and how to view their relationship with branch
+heads in gitk
+
+
 * link:howto/isolate-bugs-with-bisect.txt[isolate-bugs-with-bisect] by Linus Torvalds <torvalds () osdl ! org>
 
 Short-n-sweet, Linus tells us how to leverage `git-bisect` to perform
diff --git a/howto/dangling-objects.txt b/howto/dangling-objects.txt
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..e82ddae3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/howto/dangling-objects.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,109 @@
+From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
+Subject: Re: Question about fsck-objects output
+Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:01:06 -0800 (PST)
+Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701251144290.25027@woody.linux-foundation.org>
+Archived-At: <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/37754>
+Abstract: Linus describes what dangling objects are, when they
+ are left behind, and how to view their relationship with branch
+ heads in gitk
+
+On Thu, 25 Jan 2007, Larry Streepy wrote:
+
+> Sorry to ask such a basic question, but I can't quite decipher the output of
+> fsck-objects.  When I run it, I get this:
+>
+>  git fsck-objects
+> dangling commit 2213f6d4dd39ca8baebd0427723723e63208521b
+> dangling commit f0d4e00196bd5ee54463e9ea7a0f0e8303da767f
+> dangling blob 6a6d0b01b3e96d49a8f2c7addd4ef8c3bd1f5761
+>
+>
+> Even after a "repack -a -d" they still exist.  The man page has a short
+> explanation, but, at least for me, it wasn't fully enlightening. :-)
+>
+> The man page says that dangling commits could be "root" commits, but since my
+> repo started as a clone of another repo, I don't see how I could have any root
+> commits.  Also, the page doesn't really describe what a dangling blob is.
+>
+> So, can someone explain what these artifacts are and if they are a problem
+> that I should be worried about?
+
+The most common situation is that you've rebased a branch (or you have
+pulled from somebody else who rebased a branch, like the "pu" branch in
+the git.git archive itself).
+
+What happens is that the old head of the original branch still exists, as
+does obviously everything it pointed to. The branch pointer itself just
+doesn't, since you replaced it with another one.
+
+However, there are certainly other situations too that cause dangling
+objects. For example, the "dangling blob" situation you have tends to be
+because you did a "git add" of a file, but then, before you actually
+committed it and made it part of the bigger picture, you changed something
+else in that file and committed that *updated* thing - the old state that
+you added originally ends up not being pointed to by any commit/tree, so
+it's now a dangling blob object.
+
+Similarly, when the "recursive" merge strategy runs, and finds that there
+are criss-cross merges and thus more than one merge base (which is fairly
+unusual, but it does happen), it will generate one temporary midway tree
+(or possibly even more, if you had lots of criss-crossing merges and
+more than two merge bases) as a temporary internal merge base, and again,
+those are real objects, but the end result will not end up pointing to
+them, so they end up "dangling" in your repository.
+
+Generally, dangling objects aren't anything to worry about. They can even
+be very useful: if you screw something up, the dangling objects can be how
+you recover your old tree (say, you did a rebase, and realized that you
+really didn't want to - you can look at what dangling objects you have,
+and decide to reset your head to some old dangling state).
+
+For commits, the most useful thing to do with dangling objects tends to be
+to do a simple
+
+	gitk <dangling-commit-sha-goes-here> --not --all
+
+which means exactly what it sounds like: it says that you want to see the
+commit history that is described by the dangling commit(s), but you do NOT
+want to see the history that is described by all your branches and tags
+(which are the things you normally reach). That basically shows you in a
+nice way what the danglign commit was (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 has gotten
+dropped - rebasing will do that).
+
+For blobs and trees, you can't do the same, but you can examine them. You
+can just do
+
+	git show <dangling-blob/tree-sha-goes-here>
+
+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-objects" itself, btw - but since
+git-fsck-objects never actually *changes* the repository, it just reports
+on what it found, git-fsck-objects 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).
+
+			Linus
+