Commits

Anonymous committed 9299c4f Merge

Merge branch 'master' of git://linux-nfs.org/~bfields/git

This is in the hope of giving JBF's user-manual wider exposure.
I am not very happy with trailing whitespaces in the new
document, but let's not worry too much about the formatting
issues for now, but concentrate more on the structure and the
contents.

Comments (0)

Files changed (4)

Documentation/Makefile

 ARTICLES += everyday
 ARTICLES += git-tools
 # with their own formatting rules.
-SP_ARTICLES = glossary howto/revert-branch-rebase
+SP_ARTICLES = glossary howto/revert-branch-rebase user-manual
 
 DOC_HTML += $(patsubst %,%.html,$(ARTICLES) $(SP_ARTICLES))
 
 %.xml : %.txt
 	asciidoc -b docbook -d manpage -f asciidoc.conf $<
 
+user-manual.xml: user-manual.txt user-manual.conf
+	asciidoc -b docbook -d book $<
+
+user-manual.html: user-manual.xml
+	xmlto -m /etc/asciidoc/docbook-xsl/xhtml.xsl html-nochunks $<
+
 glossary.html : glossary.txt sort_glossary.pl
 	cat $< | \
 	perl sort_glossary.pl | \

Documentation/docbook-xsl.css

+/*
+  CSS stylesheet for XHTML produced by DocBook XSL stylesheets.
+  Tested with XSL stylesheets 1.61.2, 1.67.2
+*/
+
+span.strong {
+  font-weight: bold;
+}
+
+body blockquote {
+  margin-top: .75em;
+  line-height: 1.5;
+  margin-bottom: .75em;
+}
+
+html body {
+  margin: 1em 5% 1em 5%;
+  line-height: 1.2;
+}
+
+body div {
+  margin: 0;
+}
+
+h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6,
+div.toc p b,
+div.list-of-figures p b,
+div.list-of-tables p b,
+div.abstract p.title
+{
+  color: #527bbd;
+  font-family: tahoma, verdana, sans-serif;
+}
+
+div.toc p:first-child,
+div.list-of-figures p:first-child,
+div.list-of-tables p:first-child,
+div.example p.title
+{
+  margin-bottom: 0.2em;
+}
+
+body h1 {
+  margin: .0em 0 0 -4%;
+  line-height: 1.3;
+  border-bottom: 2px solid silver;
+}
+
+body h2 {
+  margin: 0.5em 0 0 -4%;
+  line-height: 1.3;
+  border-bottom: 2px solid silver;
+}
+
+body h3 {
+  margin: .8em 0 0 -3%;
+  line-height: 1.3;
+}
+
+body h4 {
+  margin: .8em 0 0 -3%;
+  line-height: 1.3;
+}
+
+body h5 {
+  margin: .8em 0 0 -2%;
+  line-height: 1.3;
+}
+
+body h6 {
+  margin: .8em 0 0 -1%;
+  line-height: 1.3;
+}
+
+body hr {
+  border: none; /* Broken on IE6 */
+}
+div.footnotes hr {
+  border: 1px solid silver;
+}
+
+div.navheader th, div.navheader td, div.navfooter td {
+  font-family: sans-serif;
+  font-size: 0.9em;
+  font-weight: bold;
+  color: #527bbd;
+}
+div.navheader img, div.navfooter img {
+  border-style: none;
+}
+div.navheader a, div.navfooter a {
+  font-weight: normal;
+}
+div.navfooter hr {
+  border: 1px solid silver;
+}
+
+body td {
+  line-height: 1.2
+}
+
+body th {
+  line-height: 1.2;
+}
+
+ol {
+  line-height: 1.2;
+}
+
+ul, body dir, body menu {
+  line-height: 1.2;
+}
+
+html {
+  margin: 0; 
+  padding: 0;
+}
+
+body h1, body h2, body h3, body h4, body h5, body h6 {
+  margin-left: 0
+} 
+
+body pre {
+  margin: 0.5em 10% 0.5em 1em;
+  line-height: 1.0;
+  color: navy;
+}
+
+tt.literal, code.literal {
+  color: navy;
+}
+
+div.literallayout p {
+  padding: 0em;
+  margin: 0em;
+}
+
+div.literallayout {
+  font-family: monospace;
+#  margin: 0.5em 10% 0.5em 1em;
+  margin: 0em;
+  color: navy;
+  border: 1px solid silver;
+  background: #f4f4f4;
+  padding: 0.5em;
+}
+
+.programlisting, .screen {
+  border: 1px solid silver;
+  background: #f4f4f4;
+  margin: 0.5em 10% 0.5em 0;
+  padding: 0.5em 1em;
+}
+
+div.sidebar {
+  background: #ffffee;
+  margin: 1.0em 10% 0.5em 0;
+  padding: 0.5em 1em;
+  border: 1px solid silver;
+}
+div.sidebar * { padding: 0; }
+div.sidebar div { margin: 0; }
+div.sidebar p.title {
+  font-family: sans-serif;
+  margin-top: 0.5em;
+  margin-bottom: 0.2em;
+}
+
+div.bibliomixed {
+  margin: 0.5em 5% 0.5em 1em;
+}
+
+div.glossary dt {
+  font-weight: bold;
+}
+div.glossary dd p {
+  margin-top: 0.2em;
+}
+
+dl {
+  margin: .8em 0;
+  line-height: 1.2;
+}
+
+dt {
+  margin-top: 0.5em;
+}
+
+dt span.term {
+  font-style: italic;
+}
+
+div.variablelist dd p {
+  margin-top: 0;
+}
+
+div.itemizedlist li, div.orderedlist li {
+  margin-left: -0.8em;
+  margin-top: 0.5em;
+}
+
+ul, ol {
+    list-style-position: outside;
+}
+
+div.sidebar ul, div.sidebar ol {
+    margin-left: 2.8em;
+}
+
+div.itemizedlist p.title,
+div.orderedlist p.title,
+div.variablelist p.title
+{
+  margin-bottom: -0.8em;
+}
+
+div.revhistory table {
+  border-collapse: collapse;
+  border: none;
+}
+div.revhistory th {
+  border: none;
+  color: #527bbd;
+  font-family: tahoma, verdana, sans-serif;
+}
+div.revhistory td {
+  border: 1px solid silver;
+}
+
+/* Keep TOC and index lines close together. */
+div.toc dl, div.toc dt,
+div.list-of-figures dl, div.list-of-figures dt,
+div.list-of-tables dl, div.list-of-tables dt,
+div.indexdiv dl, div.indexdiv dt
+{
+  line-height: normal;
+  margin-top: 0;
+  margin-bottom: 0;
+}
+
+/*
+  Table styling does not work because of overriding attributes in
+  generated HTML.
+*/
+div.table table,
+div.informaltable table
+{
+    margin-left: 0;
+    margin-right: 5%;
+    margin-bottom: 0.8em;
+}
+div.informaltable table
+{
+    margin-top: 0.4em
+}
+div.table thead,
+div.table tfoot,
+div.table tbody,
+div.informaltable thead,
+div.informaltable tfoot,
+div.informaltable tbody
+{
+    /* No effect in IE6. */
+    border-top: 2px solid #527bbd;
+    border-bottom: 2px solid #527bbd;
+}
+div.table thead, div.table tfoot,
+div.informaltable thead, div.informaltable tfoot
+{
+    font-weight: bold;
+}
+
+div.mediaobject img {
+    border: 1px solid silver;
+    margin-bottom: 0.8em;
+}
+div.figure p.title,
+div.table p.title
+{
+  margin-top: 1em;
+  margin-bottom: 0.4em;
+}
+
+@media print {
+  div.navheader, div.navfooter { display: none; }
+}

Documentation/user-manual.conf

+[titles]
+	underlines="__","==","--","~~","^^"
+
+[attributes]
+caret=^
+startsb=&#91;
+endsb=&#93;
+tilde=&#126;
+
+[gitlink-inlinemacro]
+<ulink url="{target}.html">{target}{0?({0})}</ulink>
+
+ifdef::backend-docbook[]
+# "unbreak" docbook-xsl v1.68 for manpages. v1.69 works with or without this.
+[listingblock]
+<example><title>{title}</title>
+<literallayout>
+|
+</literallayout>
+{title#}</example>
+endif::backend-docbook[]

Documentation/user-manual.txt

+Git User's Manual
+_________________
+
+This manual is designed to be readable by someone with basic unix
+commandline skills, but no previous knowledge of git.
+
+Chapter 1 gives a brief overview of git commands, without any
+explanation; you may prefer to skip to chapter 2 on a first reading.
+
+Chapters 2 and 3 explain how to fetch and study a project using
+git--the tools you'd need to build and test a particular version of a
+software project, to search for regressions, and so on.
+
+Chapter 4 explains how to do development with git, and chapter 5 how
+to share that 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
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Git Quick Start
+===============
+
+This is a quick summary of the major commands; the following chapters
+will explain how these work in more detail.
+
+Creating a new repository
+-------------------------
+
+From a tarball:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ tar xzf project.tar.gz
+$ cd project
+$ git init
+Initialized empty Git repository in .git/
+$ git add .
+$ git commit
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+From a remote repository:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git clone git://example.com/pub/project.git
+$ cd project
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Managing branches
+-----------------
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git branch	     # list all branches in this repo
+$ git checkout test  # switch working directory to branch "test"
+$ git branch new     # create branch "new" starting at current HEAD
+$ git branch -d new  # delete branch "new"
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Instead of basing new branch on current HEAD (the default), use:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git branch new test    # branch named "test"
+$ git branch new v2.6.15 # tag named v2.6.15
+$ git branch new HEAD^   # commit before the most recent
+$ git branch new HEAD^^  # commit before that
+$ git branch new test~10 # ten commits before tip of branch "test"
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Create and switch to a new branch at the same time:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git checkout -b new v2.6.15
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Update and examine branches from the repository you cloned from:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git fetch		# update
+$ git branch -r		# list
+  origin/master
+  origin/next
+  ...
+$ git branch checkout -b masterwork origin/master
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Fetch a branch from a different repository, and give it a new
+name in your repository:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git fetch git://example.com/project.git theirbranch:mybranch
+$ git fetch git://example.com/project.git v2.6.15:mybranch
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Keep a list of repositories you work with regularly:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git remote add example git://example.com/project.git
+$ git remote			# list remote repositories
+example
+origin
+$ git remote show example	# get details
+* remote example
+  URL: git://example.com/project.git
+  Tracked remote branches
+    master next ...
+$ git fetch example		# update branches from example
+$ git branch -r			# list all remote branches
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+
+Exploring history
+-----------------
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ gitk			    # visualize and browse history
+$ git log		    # list all commits
+$ git log src/		    # ...modifying src/
+$ git log v2.6.15..v2.6.16  # ...in v2.6.16, not in v2.6.15
+$ git log master..test	    # ...in branch test, not in branch master
+$ git log test..master	    # ...in branch master, but not in test
+$ git log test...master	    # ...in one branch, not in both
+$ git log -S'foo()'	    # ...where difference contain "foo()"
+$ git log --since="2 weeks ago"
+$ git log -p		    # show patches as well
+$ git show		    # most recent commit
+$ git diff v2.6.15..v2.6.16 # diff between two tagged versions
+$ git diff v2.6.15..HEAD    # diff with current head
+$ git grep "foo()"	    # search working directory for "foo()"
+$ git grep v2.6.15 "foo()"  # search old tree for "foo()"
+$ git show v2.6.15:a.txt    # look at old version of a.txt
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Search for regressions:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git bisect start
+$ git bisect bad		# current version is bad
+$ git bisect good v2.6.13-rc2	# last known good revision
+Bisecting: 675 revisions left to test after this
+				# test here, then:
+$ git bisect good		# if this revision is good, or
+$ git bisect bad		# if this revision is bad.
+				# repeat until done.
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Making changes
+--------------
+
+Make sure git knows who to blame:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ cat >~/.gitconfig <<\EOF
+[user]
+name = Your Name Comes Here
+email = you@yourdomain.example.com
+EOF
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Select file contents to include in the next commit, then make the
+commit:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git add a.txt    # updated file
+$ git add b.txt    # new file
+$ git rm c.txt     # old file
+$ git commit
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Or, prepare and create the commit in one step:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git commit d.txt # use latest content only of d.txt
+$ git commit -a	   # use latest content of all tracked files
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+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
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Sharing your changes
+--------------------
+
+Importing or exporting patches:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git format-patch origin..HEAD # format a patch for each commit
+				# in HEAD but not in origin
+$ git-am mbox # import patches from the mailbox "mbox"
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Fetch a branch in a different git repository, then merge into the
+current branch:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git pull git://example.com/project.git theirbranch
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Store the fetched branch into a local branch before merging into the
+current branch:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git pull git://example.com/project.git theirbranch:mybranch
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+After creating commits on a local branch, update the remote
+branch with your commits:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git push ssh://example.com/project.git mybranch:theirbranch
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+When remote and local branch are both named "test":
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git push ssh://example.com/project.git test
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Shortcut version for a frequently used remote repository:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git remote add example ssh://example.com/project.git
+$ git push example test
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Repository maintenance
+----------------------
+
+Check for corruption:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git fsck
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Recompress, remove unused cruft:
+
+-----------------------------------------------
+$ git gc
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+Repositories and Branches
+=========================
+
+How to get a git repository
+---------------------------
+
+It will be useful to have a git repository to experiment with as you
+read this manual.
+
+The best way to get one is by using the gitlink:git-clone[1] command
+to download a copy of an existing repository for a project that you
+are interested in.  If you don't already have a project in mind, here
+are some interesting examples:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+	# git itself (approx. 10MB download):
+$ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
+	# the linux kernel (approx. 150MB download):
+$ git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
+------------------------------------------------
+
+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,
+together with a special top-level directory named ".git", which
+contains all the information about the history of the project.
+
+In most of the following, examples will be taken from one of the two
+repositories above.
+
+How to check out a different version of a project
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Git is best thought of as a tool for storing the history of a
+collection of files.  It stores the history as a compressed
+collection of interrelated snapshots (versions) of the project's
+contents.
+
+A single git repository may contain multiple branches.  Each branch
+is a bookmark referencing a particular point in the project history.
+The gitlink:git-branch[1] command shows you the list of branches:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git branch
+* master
+------------------------------------------------
+
+A freshly cloned repository contains a single branch, named "master",
+and the working directory contains the version of the project
+referred to by the master branch.
+
+Most projects also use tags.  Tags, like branches, are references
+into the project's history, and can be listed using the
+gitlink: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 branches are expected to advance as development progresses.
+
+Create a new branch pointing to one of these versions and check it
+out using gitlink:git-checkout[1]:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git checkout -b new v2.6.13
+------------------------------------------------
+
+The working directory then reflects the contents that the project had
+when it was tagged v2.6.13, and gitlink: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
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git reset --hard v2.6.17
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Note that if the current branch 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.
+
+Understanding History: Commits
+------------------------------
+
+Every change in the history of a project is represented by a commit.
+The gitlink:git-show[1] command shows the most recent commit on the
+current branch:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git show
+commit 2b5f6dcce5bf94b9b119e9ed8d537098ec61c3d2
+Author: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@cyberus.ca>
+Date:   Sat Dec 2 22:22:25 2006 -0800
+
+    [XFRM]: Fix aevent structuring to be more complete.
+    
+    aevents can not uniquely identify an SA. We break the ABI with this
+    patch, but consensus is that since it is not yet utilized by any
+    (known) application then it is fine (better do it now than later).
+    
+    Signed-off-by: Jamal Hadi Salim <hadi@cyberus.ca>
+    Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
+
+diff --git a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_sync.txt b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_sync.txt
+index 8be626f..d7aac9d 100644
+--- a/Documentation/networking/xfrm_sync.txt
++++ b/Documentation/networking/xfrm_sync.txt
+@@ -47,10 +47,13 @@ aevent_id structure looks like:
+ 
+    struct xfrm_aevent_id {
+              struct xfrm_usersa_id           sa_id;
++             xfrm_address_t                  saddr;
+              __u32                           flags;
++             __u32                           reqid;
+    };
+...
+------------------------------------------------
+
+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 you it does in yours (assuming their repository has that commit at
+all).
+
+Understanding history: commits, parents, and reachability
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Every commit (except the very first commit in a project) also has a
+parent commit which shows what happened before this commit.
+Following the chain of parents will eventually take you back to the
+beginning of the project.
+
+However, the commits do not form a simple list; git allows lines of
+development to diverge and then reconverge, and the point where two
+lines of development reconverge is called a "merge".  The commit
+representing a merge can therefore have more than one parent, with
+each parent representing the most recent commit on one of the lines
+of development leading to that point.
+
+The best way to see how this works is using the gitlink:gitk[1]
+command; running gitk now on a git repository and looking for merge
+commits will help understand how the git organizes history.
+
+In the following, we say that commit X is "reachable" from commit Y
+if commit X is an ancestor of commit Y.  Equivalently, you could say
+that Y is a descendent of X, or that there is a chain of parents
+leading from commit Y to commit X.
+
+Undestanding history: History diagrams
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+We will sometimes represent git history using diagrams like the one
+below.  Commits are shown as "o", and the links between them with
+lines drawn with - / and \.  Time goes left to right:
+
+         o--o--o <-- Branch A
+        /
+ o--o--o <-- master
+        \
+         o--o--o <-- Branch B
+
+If we need to talk about a particular commit, the character "o" may
+be replaced with another letter or number.
+
+Understanding history: What is a branch?
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Though we've been using the word "branch" to mean a kind of reference
+to a particular commit, the word branch is also commonly used to
+refer to the line of commits leading up to that point.  In the
+example above, git may think of the branch named "A" as just a
+pointer to one particular commit, but we may refer informally to the
+line of three commits leading up to that point as all being part of
+"branch A".
+
+If we need to make it clear that we're just talking about the most
+recent commit on the branch, we may refer to that commit as the
+"head" of the branch.
+
+Manipulating branches
+---------------------
+
+Creating, deleting, and modifying branches is quick and easy; here's
+a summary of the commands:
+
+git branch::
+	list all branches
+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 this 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.
+
+It is also useful to know that the special symbol "HEAD" can always
+be used to refer to the current branch.
+
+Examining branches from a remote repository
+-------------------------------------------
+
+The "master" branch that was created at the time you cloned is a copy
+of the HEAD in the repository that you cloned from.  That repository
+may also have had other branches, though, and your local repository
+keeps branches which track each of those remote branches, which you
+can view using the "-r" option to gitlink:git-branch[1]:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ 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:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git checkout -b my-todo-copy origin/todo
+------------------------------------------------
+
+Note that the name "origin" is just the name that git uses by default
+to refer to the repository that you cloned from.
+
+[[how-git-stores-references]]
+Naming branches, tags, and other references
+-------------------------------------------
+
+Branches, remote-tracking branches, and tags are all references to
+commits.  All references are named with a slash-separated path name
+starting with "refs"; the names we've been using so far are actually
+shorthand:
+
+	- The branch "test" is short for "refs/heads/test".
+	- The tag "v2.6.18" is short for "refs/tags/v2.6.18".
+	- "origin/master" is short for "refs/remotes/origin/master".
+
+The full name is occasionally useful if, for example, there ever
+exists a tag and a branch with the same name.
+
+As another useful shortcut, if the repository "origin" posesses only
+a single branch, you can refer to that branch as just "origin".
+
+More generally, if you have defined a remote repository named
+"example", you can refer to the branch in that repository as
+"example".  And for a repository with multiple branches, this will
+refer to the branch designated as the "HEAD" branch.
+
+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 gitlink:git-rev-parse[1].
+
+[[Updating-a-repository-with-git-fetch]]
+Updating a repository with git fetch
+------------------------------------
+
+Eventually the developer cloned from will do additional work in her
+repository, creating new commits and advancing the branches to point
+at the new commits.
+
+The command "git fetch", with no arguments, will update all of the
+remote-tracking branches to the latest version found in her
+repository.  It will not touch any of your own branches--not even the
+"master" branch that was created for you on clone.
+
+Fetching branches from other repositories
+-----------------------------------------
+
+You can also track branches from repositories other than the one you
+cloned from, using gitlink:git-remote[1]:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git remote add linux-nfs git://linux-nfs.org/pub/nfs-2.6.git
+$ git fetch
+* refs/remotes/linux-nfs/master: storing branch 'master' ...
+  commit: bf81b46
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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/~bfields/git.git
+	fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/linux-nfs-read/*
+...
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+gitlink:git-config[1] for details.)
+
+Exploring git history
+=====================
+
+Git is best thought of as a tool for storing the history of a
+collection of files.  It does this by storing compressed snapshots of
+the contents of a file heirarchy, together with "commits" which show
+the relationships between these snapshots.
+
+Git provides extremely flexible and fast tools for exploring the
+history of a project.
+
+We start with one specialized tool which is useful for finding the
+commit that introduced a bug into a project.
+
+How to use bisect to find a regression
+--------------------------------------
+
+Suppose version 2.6.18 of your project worked, but the version at
+"master" crashes.  Sometimes the best way to find the cause of such a
+regression is to perform a brute-force search through the project's
+history to find the particular commit that caused the problem.  The
+gitlink:git-bisect[1] command can help you do this:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git bisect start
+$ git bisect good v2.6.18
+$ git bisect bad master
+Bisecting: 3537 revisions left to test after this
+[65934a9a028b88e83e2b0f8b36618fe503349f8e] BLOCK: Make USB storage depend on SCSI rather than selecting it [try #6]
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+v2.6.19 but not from v2.6.18.  Compile and test it, and see whether
+it crashes.  Assume it does crash.  Then:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git bisect bad
+Bisecting: 1769 revisions left to test after this
+[7eff82c8b1511017ae605f0c99ac275a7e21b867] i2c-core: Drop useless bitmaskings
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+gitlink:git-show[1], find out who wrote it, and mail them your bug
+report with the commit id.  Finally, run
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git bisect reset
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git bisect-visualize
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git reset --hard fb47ddb2db...
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+then test, run "bisect good" or "bisect bad" as appropriate, and
+continue.
+
+Naming commits
+--------------
+
+We have seen several ways of naming commits already:
+
+	- 40-hexdigit object name
+	- branch name: refers to the commit at the head of the given
+	  branch
+	- tag name: refers to the commit pointed to by the given tag
+	  (we've seen branches and tags are special cases of
+	  <<how-git-stores-references,references>>).
+	- HEAD: refers to the head of the current branch
+
+There are many more; see the "SPECIFYING REVISIONS" section of the
+gitlink: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:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git show HEAD^1   # show the first parent of HEAD
+$ git show HEAD^2   # show the second parent of HEAD
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git fetch git://example.com/proj.git theirbranch
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+the fetched commits will still be available from FETCH_HEAD.
+
+When we discuss merges we'll also see the special name MERGE_HEAD,
+which refers to the other branch that we're merging in to the current
+branch.
+
+The gitlink:git-rev-parse[1] command is a low-level command that is
+occasionally useful for translating some name for a commit to the object
+name for that commit:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git rev-parse origin
+e05db0fd4f31dde7005f075a84f96b360d05984b
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Creating tags
+-------------
+
+We can also create a tag to refer to a particular commit; after
+running
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git-tag stable-1 1b2e1d63ff
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+You can use stable-1 to refer to the commit 1b2e1d63ff.
+
+This creates a "lightweight" tag.  If the tag is a tag you wish to
+share with others, and possibly sign cryptographically, then you
+should create a tag object instead; see the gitlink:git-tag[1] man
+page for details.
+
+Browsing revisions
+------------------
+
+The gitlink:git-log[1] command can show lists of commits.  On its
+own, it shows all commits reachable from the parent commit; but you
+can also make more specific requests:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git log v2.5..	# commits since (not reachable from) v2.5
+$ git log test..master	# commits reachable from master but not test
+$ git log master..test	# ...reachable from test but not master
+$ git log master...test	# ...reachable from either test or master,
+			#    but not both
+$ git log --since="2 weeks ago" # commits from the last 2 weeks
+$ git log Makefile      # commits which modify Makefile
+$ git log fs/		# ... which modify any file under fs/
+$ git log -S'foo()'	# commits which add or remove any file data
+			# matching the string 'foo()'
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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 v2.5.. Makefile fs/
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+You can also ask git log to show patches:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git log -p
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+See the "--pretty" option in the gitlink: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 independant lines of development, the particular order that
+commits are listed in may be somewhat arbitrary.
+
+Generating diffs
+----------------
+
+You can generate diffs between any two versions using
+gitlink:git-diff[1]:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git diff master..test
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Sometimes what you want instead is a set of patches:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git format-patch master..test
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+will generate a file with a patch for each commit reachable from test
+but not from master.  Note that if master also has commits which are
+not reachable from test, then the combined result of these patches
+will not be the same as the diff produced by the git-diff example.
+
+Viewing old file versions
+-------------------------
+
+You can always view an old version of a file by just checking out the
+correct revision first.  But sometimes it is more convenient to be
+able to view an old version of a single file without checking
+anything out; this command does that:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git show v2.5:fs/locks.c
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Before the colon may be anything that names a commit, and after it
+may be any path to a file tracked by git.
+
+Examples
+--------
+
+Check whether two branches point at the same history
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Suppose you want to check whether two branches point at the same point
+in history.
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git diff origin..master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git rev-list origin
+e05db0fd4f31dde7005f075a84f96b360d05984b
+$ git rev-list master
+e05db0fd4f31dde7005f075a84f96b360d05984b
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Or you could recall that the ... operator selects all commits
+contained reachable from either one reference or the other but not
+both: so
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git log origin...master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+will return no commits when the two branches are equal.
+
+Find first tagged version including a given fix
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Suppose you know that the commit e05db0fd fixed a certain problem.
+You'd like to find the earliest tagged release that contains that
+fix.
+
+Of course, there may be more than one answer--if the history branched
+after commit e05db0fd, then there could be multiple "earliest" tagged
+releases.
+
+You could just visually inspect the commits since e05db0fd:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ gitk e05db0fd..
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Or you can use gitlink: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:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git name-rev e05db0fd
+e05db0fd tags/v1.5.0-rc1^0~23
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+The gitlink:git-describe[1] command does the opposite, naming the
+revision using a tag on which the given commit is based:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git describe e05db0fd
+v1.5.0-rc0-ge05db0f
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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 gitlink:git-merge-base[1]:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git merge-base e05db0fd v1.5.0-rc1
+e05db0fd4f31dde7005f075a84f96b360d05984b
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git log v1.5.0-rc1..e05db0fd
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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 gitlink:git-show-branch[1] command lists
+the commits reachable from its arguments with a display on the left-hand
+side that indicates which arguments that commit is reachable from.  So,
+you can run something like
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git show-branch e05db0fd v1.5.0-rc0 v1.5.0-rc1 v1.5.0-rc2
+! [e05db0fd] Fix warnings in sha1_file.c - use C99 printf format if
+available
+ ! [v1.5.0-rc0] GIT v1.5.0 preview
+  ! [v1.5.0-rc1] GIT v1.5.0-rc1
+   ! [v1.5.0-rc2] GIT v1.5.0-rc2
+...
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+then search for a line that looks like
+
+-------------------------------------------------
++ ++ [e05db0fd] Fix warnings in sha1_file.c - use C99 printf format if
+available
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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.
+
+
+Developing with git
+===================
+
+Telling git your name
+---------------------
+
+Before creating any commits, you should introduce yourself to git.  The
+easiest way to do so is:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ cat >~/.gitconfig <<\EOF
+[user]
+	name = Your Name Comes Here
+	email = you@yourdomain.example.com
+EOF
+------------------------------------------------
+
+(See the "CONFIGURATION FILE" section of gitlink:git-config[1] for
+details on the configuration file.)
+
+
+Creating a new repository
+-------------------------
+
+Creating a new repository from scratch is very easy:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ mkdir project
+$ cd project
+$ git init
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+If you have some initial content (say, a tarball):
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ tar -xzvf project.tar.gz
+$ cd project
+$ git init
+$ git add . # include everything below ./ in the first commit:
+$ git commit
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+[[how-to-make-a-commit]]
+how to make a commit
+--------------------
+
+Creating a new commit takes three steps:
+
+	1. Making some changes to the working directory using your
+	   favorite editor.
+	2. Telling git about your changes.
+	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
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git add path/to/file
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+To add the contents of a new file to the index, use
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git add path/to/file
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+To remove a file from the index and from the working tree,
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git rm path/to/file
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+After each step you can verify that
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git diff --cached
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+commmit.  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 commited 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 status	    # a brief per-file summary of the above.
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+creating good commit messages
+-----------------------------
+
+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.
+
+how to merge
+------------
+
+You can rejoin two diverging branches of development using
+gitlink:git-merge[1]:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git merge branchname
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git pull . next
+Trying really trivial in-index merge...
+fatal: Merge requires file-level merging
+Nope.
+Merging HEAD with 77976da35a11db4580b80ae27e8d65caf5208086
+Merging:
+15e2162 world
+77976da goodbye
+found 1 common ancestor(s):
+d122ed4 initial
+Auto-merging file.txt
+CONFLICT (content): Merge conflict in file.txt
+Automatic merge failed; fix conflicts and then commit the result.
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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.
+
+In more detail:
+
+[[resolving-a-merge]]
+Resolving a merge
+-----------------
+
+When a merge isn't resolved automatically, git leaves the index and
+the working tree in a special state that gives you all the
+information you need to help resolve the merge.
+
+Files with conflicts are marked specially in the index, so until you
+resolve the problem and update the index, git commit will fail:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git commit
+file.txt: needs merge
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Also, git status will list those files as "unmerged".
+
+All of the changes that git was able to merge automatically are
+already added to the index file, so gitlink:git-diff[1] shows only
+the conflicts.  Also, it uses a somewhat unusual syntax:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ 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 commited 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.
+
+The diff above shows the differences between the working-tree version
+of file.txt and two previous version: one version from HEAD, and one
+from MERGE_HEAD.  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.  Thus after resolving the conflict in the
+obvious way, 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.
+
+The gitlink:git-log[1] command also provides special help for merges:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git log --merge
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+This will list all commits which exist only on HEAD or on MERGE_HEAD,
+and which touch an unmerged file.
+
+We can now add the resolved version to the index and commit:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git add file.txt
+$ git commit
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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.
+
+[[undoing-a-merge]]
+undoing a merge
+---------------
+
+If you get stuck and decide to just give up and throw the whole mess
+away, you can always return to the pre-merge state with
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git reset --hard HEAD
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+Or, if you've already commited the merge that you want to throw away,
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git reset --hard HEAD^
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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.
+
+Fast-forward merges
+-------------------
+
+There is one special case not mentioned above, which is treated
+differently.  Normally, a merge results in a merge commit, with two
+parents, one pointing at each of the two lines of development that
+were merged.
+
+However, if one of the two lines of development is completely
+contained within the other--so every commit present in the one is
+already contained in the other--then git just performs a
+<<fast-forwards,fast forward>>; the head of the current branch is
+moved forward to point at the head of the merged-in branch, without
+any new commits being created.
+
+Fixing mistakes
+---------------
+
+If you've messed up the working tree, but haven't yet committed your
+mistake, you can return the entire working tree to the last committed
+state with
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git reset --hard HEAD
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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 previous 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.
+
+Fixing a mistake with a new commit
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Creating a new commit that reverts an earlier change is very easy;
+just pass the gitlink:git-revert[1] command a reference to the bad
+commit; for example, to revert the most recent commit:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git revert HEAD
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git revert HEAD^
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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,
+resolving a merge>>.
+
+Fixing a mistake by editing history
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+If the problematic commit is the most recent commit, and you have not
+yet made that commit public, then you may just
+<<undoing-a-merge,destroy it using git-reset>>.
+
+Alternatively, you
+can edit the working directory and update the index to fix your
+mistake, just as if you were going to <<how-to-make-a-commit,create a
+new commit>>, then run
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git commit --amend
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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 gitlink:git-revert[1] instead in
+that case.
+
+It is also possible to edit commits further back in the history, but
+this is an advanced topic to be left for
+<<cleaning-up-history,another chapter>>.
+
+Checking out an old version of a file
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+In the process of undoing a previous bad change, you may find it
+useful to check out an older version of a particular file using
+gitlink:git-checkout[1].  We've used git checkout before to switch
+branches, but it has quite different behavior if it is given a path
+name: the command
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git checkout HEAD^ path/to/file
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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
+gitlink:git-show[1]:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git show HEAD^ path/to/file
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+which will display the given version of the file.
+
+Ensuring good performance
+-------------------------
+
+On large repositories, git depends on compression to keep the history
+information from taking up to much space on disk or in memory.
+
+This compression is not performed automatically.  Therefore you
+should occasionally run gitlink:git-gc[1]:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ 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.
+
+Ensuring reliability
+--------------------
+
+Checking the repository for corruption
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+The gitlink:git-fsck[1] command runs a number of self-consistency checks
+on the repository, and reports on any problems.  This may take some
+time.  The most common warning by far is about "dangling" objects:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ 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 objects that are harmless, but also unnecessary;
+you can remove them at any time with gitlink:git-prune[1] or the --prune
+option to gitlink: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.
+
+For more about dangling objects, see <<dangling-objects>>.
+
+
+Recovering lost changes
+~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+
+Reflogs
+^^^^^^^
+
+Say you modify a branch with gitlink:git-reset[1] --hard, and then
+realize that the branch was the only reference you had to that point in
+history.
+
+Fortunately, git also keeps a log, called a "reflog", of all the
+previous values of each branch.  So in this case you can still find the
+old history using, for example, 
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git log master@{1}
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+This lists the commits reachable from the previous version of the head.
+This syntax can be used to with any git command that accepts a commit,
+not just with git log.  Some other examples:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git show master@{2}		# See where the branch pointed 2,
+$ git show master@{3}		# 3, ... changes ago.
+$ gitk master@{yesterday}	# See where it pointed yesterday,
+$ gitk master@{"1 week ago"}	# ... or last week
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+The reflogs are kept by default for 30 days, after which they may be
+pruned.  See gitlink:git-reflog[1] and gitlink:git-gc[1] to learn
+how to control this pruning, and see the "SPECIFYING REVISIONS"
+section of gitlink: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 pointed you.  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; run git-fsck and watch for output that mentions
+"dangling commits":
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git fsck
+dangling commit 7281251ddd2a61e38657c827739c57015671a6b3
+dangling commit 2706a059f258c6b245f298dc4ff2ccd30ec21a63
+dangling commit 13472b7c4b80851a1bc551779171dcb03655e9b5
+...
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+and watch for output that mentions "dangling commits".  You can examine
+one of those dangling commits with, for example,
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ gitk 7281251ddd --not --all
+------------------------------------------------
+
+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 gotten dropped.)
+
+If you decide you want the history back, you can always create a new
+reference pointing to it, for example, a new branch:
+
+------------------------------------------------
+$ git branch recovered-branch 7281251ddd 
+------------------------------------------------
+
+
+Sharing development with others
+===============================
+
+[[getting-updates-with-git-pull]]
+Getting updates with git pull
+-----------------------------
+
+After you clone a repository and make a few changes of your own, you
+may wish to check the original repository for updates and merge them
+into your own work.
+
+We have already seen <<Updating-a-repository-with-git-fetch,how to
+keep remote tracking branches up to date>> with gitlink:git-fetch[1],
+and how to merge two branches.  So you can merge in changes from the
+original repository's master branch with:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git fetch
+$ git merge origin/master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+However, the gitlink:git-pull[1] command provides a way to do this in
+one step:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git pull origin master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+In fact, "origin" is normally the default repository to pull from,
+and the default branch is normally the HEAD of the remote repository,
+so often you can accomplish the above with just
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git pull
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+See the descriptions of the branch.<name>.remote and
+branch.<name>.merge options in gitlink:git-config[1] to learn
+how to control these defaults depending on the current branch.
+
+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-forwards,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
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git pull . branch
+$ git merge branch
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+are roughly equivalent.  The former is actually very commonly used.
+
+Submitting patches to a project
+-------------------------------
+
+If you just have a few changes, the simplest way to submit them may
+just be to send them as patches in email:
+
+First, use gitlink:git-format-patch[1]; for example:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git format-patch origin
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+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 gitlink: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.
+
+Importing patches to a project
+------------------------------
+
+Git also provides a tool called gitlink: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
+"<<resolving-a-merge,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.
+
+[[setting-up-a-public-repository]]
+Setting up a public repository
+------------------------------
+
+Another way to submit changes to a project is to simply tell the
+maintainer of that project to pull from your repository, exactly as
+you did in the section "<<getting-updates-with-git-pull, Getting
+updates with git pull>>".
+
+If you and maintainer both have accounts on the same machine, then
+then you can just pull changes from each other's repositories
+directly; note that all of the command (gitlink:git-clone[1],
+git-fetch[1], git-pull[1], etc.) which accept a URL as an argument
+will also accept a local file patch; so, for example, you can
+use
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git clone /path/to/repository
+$ git pull /path/to/other/repository
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+If this sort of setup is inconvenient or impossible, another (more
+common) option is to set up a public repository on a public server.
+This also 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 repository.  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
+
+Now, assume your personal repository is in the directory ~/proj.  We
+first create a new clone of the repository:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git clone --bare proj-clone.git
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+The resulting directory proj-clone.git will contains a "bare" git
+repository--it is just the contents of the ".git" directory, without
+a checked-out copy of a working directory.
+
+Next, copy proj-clone.git to the server where you plan to host the
+public repository.  You can use scp, rsync, or whatever is most
+convenient.
+
+If somebody else maintains the public server, they may already have
+set up a git service for you, and you may skip to the section
+"<<pushing-changes-to-a-public-repository,Pushing changes to a public
+repository>>", below.
+
+Otherwise, the following sections explain how to export your newly
+created public repository:
+
+[[exporting-via-http]]
+Exporting a git repository via http
+-----------------------------------
+
+The git protocol gives better performance and reliability, but on a
+host with a web server set up, http exports may be simpler to set up.
+
+All you need to do is place the newly created bare git repository in
+a directory that is exported by the web server, and make some
+adjustments to give web clients some extra information they need:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ mv proj.git /home/you/public_html/proj.git
+$ cd proj.git
+$ git update-server-info
+$ chmod a+x hooks/post-update
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+(For an explanation of the last two lines, see
+gitlink:git-update-server-info[1], and the documentation
+link:hooks.txt[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 commandline like:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git clone http://yourserver.com/~you/proj.git
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+(See also
+link:howto/setup-git-server-over-http.txt[setup-git-server-over-http]
+for a slightly more sophisticated setup using WebDAV which also
+allows pushing over http.)
+
+[[exporting-via-git]]
+Exporting a git repository via the git protocol
+-----------------------------------------------
+
+This is the preferred method.
+
+For now, we refer you to the gitlink:git-daemon[1] man page for
+instructions.  (See especially the examples section.)
+
+[[pushing-changes-to-a-public-repository]]
+Pushing changes to a public repository
+--------------------------------------
+
+Note that the two techniques outline above (exporting via
+<<exporting-via-http,http>> or <<exporting-via-git,git>>) allow other
+maintainers to fetch your latest changes, but they do not allow write
+access, which you will need to update the public repository with the
+latest changes created in your private repository.
+
+The simplest way to do this is using gitlink:git-push[1] and ssh; to
+update the remote branch named "master" with the latest state of your
+branch named "master", run
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git push ssh://yourserver.com/~you/proj.git master:master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+or just
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git push ssh://yourserver.com/~you/proj.git master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+As with git-fetch, git-push will complain if this does not result in
+a <<fast-forwards,fast forward>>.  Normally this is a sign of
+something wrong.  However, if you are sure you know what you're
+doing, you may force git-push to perform the update anyway by
+proceeding the branch name by a plus sign:
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git push ssh://yourserver.com/~you/proj.git +master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+As with git-fetch, you may also set up configuration options to
+save typing; so, for example, after
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ cat >.git/config <<EOF
+[remote "public-repo"]
+	url = ssh://yourserver.com/~you/proj.git
+EOF
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+you should be able to perform the above push with just
+
+-------------------------------------------------
+$ git push public-repo master
+-------------------------------------------------
+
+See the explanations of the remote.<name>.url, branch.<name>.remote,
+and remote.<name>.push options in gitlink:git-config[1] for
+details.
+
+Setting up a shared repository
+------------------------------
+
+Another way to collaborate is by using a model similar to that
+commonly used in CVS, where several developers with special rights
+all push to and pull from a single shared repository.  See
+link:cvs-migration.txt[git for CVS users] for instructions on how to
+set this up.
+
+Allow web browsing of a repository
+----------------------------------
+
+The gitweb cgi script provides users an easy way to browse your
+project's files and history without having to install git; see the file
+gitweb/README in the git source tree for instructions on setting it up.
+
+Examples
+--------
+
+TODO: topic branches, typical roles as in everyday.txt, ?
+
+
+[[cleaning-up-history]]
+Rewriting history and maintaining patch series
+==============================================
+
+Normally commits are only added to a project, never taken away or
+replaced.  Git is designed with this assumption, and violating it will
+cause git's merge machinery (for example) to do the wrong thing.
+
+However, there is a situation in which it can be useful to violate this
+assumption.
+
+Creating the perfect patch series
+---------------------------------
+
+Suppose you are a contributor to a large project, and you want to add a
+complicated feature, and to present it to the other developers in a way
+that makes it easy for them to read your changes, verify that they are
+correct, and understand why you made each change.
+
+If you present all of your changes as a single patch (or commit), they
+may find it is too much to digest all at once.
+
+If you present them with the entire history of your work, complete with
+mistakes, corrections, and dead ends, they may be overwhelmed.
+
+So the ideal is usually to produce a series of patches such that:
+
+	1. Each patch can be applied in order.
+
+	2. Each patch includes a single logical change, together with a
+	   message explaining the change.
+