[Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Junio C Hamano]

This hopefully is pretty much it for 1.5.0 modulo potential bugs
especially in newer topics.  Aside from many bugfixes, changes
since -rc1 are:

 - 'git log' is now reflog aware, and 'git show-branch' which
   knew about reflog already has become much more useful with
   reflogs.

 - the porcelain/ancillary/plumbing categorization in the git
   main documentation has been reviewed and updated.

 - merge and pull operations are much less chatty.

 - operation in a bare repositories is more pleasant.

 - the default file extension for format-patch output is .patch
   now.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Proulx (1):
      git-revert: Fix die before git-sh-setup defines it.

Chris Wedgwood (1):
      cache.h; fix a couple of prototypes

David Kågedal (2):
      Shell syntax fix in git-reset
      Document --ignore-if-in-upstream in git-format-patch

Doug Maxey (1):
      gitk: add current directory to main window title

Eric Wong (2):
      git-svn: fix tests to work with older svn
      git-svn: print and flush authentication prompts to STDERR

Jason Riedy (4):
      Start all test scripts with /bin/sh.
      Set _ALL_SOURCE for AIX, but avoid its struct list.
      Replace "echo -n" with printf in shell scripts.
      Solaris 5.8 returns ENOTDIR for inappropriate renames.

Jeff King (1):
      git-pull: disallow implicit merging to detached HEAD

Johannes Schindelin (9):
      Fix spurious compile error
      config_set_multivar(): disallow newlines in keys
      show_date(): fix relative dates
      apply --cached: fix crash in subdirectory
      Do not verify filenames in a bare repository
      Teach the revision walker to walk by reflogs with --walk-reflogs
      --walk-reflogs: disallow uninteresting commits
      --walk-reflogs: actually find the right commit by date.
      --walk-reflogs: do not crash with cyclic reflog ancestry

Junio C Hamano (69):
      reflog-expire: brown paper bag fix.
      merge-recursive: do not report the resulting tree object name
      Explain "Not a git repository: '.git'".
      glossary typofix
      Make git-prune-packed a bit more chatty.
      Define cd_to_toplevel shell function in git-sh-setup
      Use cd_to_toplevel in scripts that implement it by hand.
      Allow whole-tree operations to be started from a subdirectory
      Use log output encoding in --pretty=email headers.
      t3901: test "format-patch | am" pipe with i18n
      git-commit documentation: -a adds and also removes
      Consistent message encoding while reusing log from an existing commit.
      More tests in t3901.
      git log documentation: teach -<n> form.
      Add describe test.
      Documentation: merge-output is not too verbose now.
      Use merge-recursive in git-revert/git-cherry-pick
      git reflog expire: document --stale-fix option.
      Fix git-fetch while on detached HEAD not to give needlessly alarming
        errors
      git-push documentation: remaining bits
      git-rm documentation: remove broken behaviour from the example.
      tutorial: shorthand for remotes but show distributed nature of git
      git-commit documentation: remove comment on unfixed git-rm
      Use merge-recursive in git-checkout -m (branch switching)
      Document where configuration files are in config.txt
      git-commit: document log message formatting convention
      Documentation/SubmittingPatches: Gnus tips
      Documentation/git-tag: the command can be used to also verify a tag.
      Documentation/git-tools.txt: mention tig and refer to wiki
      Documentation/git-tar-tree.txt: default umask is now 002
      Documentation/git-status.txt: mention color configuration
      Documentation/git-whatchanged.txt: show -<n> instead of --max-count.
      Documentation/git-sh-setup.txt: programmer's docs
      Documentation: detached HEAD
      Make a short-and-sweet "git-add -i" synonym for "git-add --interactive"
      Documentation: describe shallow repository
      Documentation/glossary.txt: unpacked objects are loose.
      Documentation/glossary.txt: describe remotes/ tracking and packed-refs
      Introduce 'git-format-patch --suffix=.patch'
      git-format-patch: do not crash with format.headers without value.
      Documentation/git-resolve: deprecated.
      Documentation: suggest corresponding Porcelain-level in plumbing docs.
      Documentation: m can be relative in "git-blame -Ln,m"
      Documentation/git-parse-remote.txt: we deal with config vars as well
      git-format-patch -3
      Add --summary to git-format-patch by default
      git-format-patch: make --binary on by default
      git-format-patch: the default suffix is now .patch, not .txt
      Use fixed-size integers for .idx file I/O
      Documentation: move command list in git.txt into separate files.
      Documentation: sync git.txt command list and manual page title
      Documentation: Generate command lists.
      for_each_reflog_ent: do not leak FILE *
      refs.c::read_ref_at(): fix bogus munmap() call.
      Documentation: generated cmds-*.txt does not depend on git.txt
      Documentation/git.txt: command re-classification
      dwim_ref(): Separate name-to-ref DWIM code out.
      Extend read_ref_at() to be usable from places other than sha1_name.
      show-branch --reflog: show the reflog message at the top.
      show-branch --reflog: tighten input validation.
      show-branch --reflog: fix show_date() call
      Stop ignoring Documentation/README
      git-tag -d: allow deleting multiple tags at once.
      branch -f: no reason to forbid updating the current branch in a
        bare repo.
      git-rebase: allow rebasing a detached HEAD.
      log --walk-reflog: documentation
      reflog-walk: build fixes
      Fix --walk-reflog with --pretty=oneline
      GIT v1.5.0-rc2

Linus Torvalds (2):
      Clean up write_in_full() users
      Fix up totally buggered read_or_die()

Matthias Lederhofer (2):
      prune-packed: add -q to usage
      prune: --grace=time

Michael S. Tsirkin (1):
      fix documentation for git-commit --no-verify

Nicolas Pitre (4):
      use 'init' instead of 'init-db' for shipped docs and tools
      simplify the "no changes added to commit" message
      some doc updates
      sanitize content of README file

Peter Baumann (1):
      Make gitk work when launched in a subdirectory

Quy Tonthat (1):
      git-remote: no longer silent on unknown commands.

René Scharfe (1):
      Documentation: a few spelling fixes

Santi Béjar (1):
      tutorial: Use only separate layout

Shawn O. Pearce (18):
      Improve merge performance by avoiding in-index merges.
      Hide output about SVN::Core not being found during tests.
      Remove read_or_die in favor of better error messages.
      Remove unnecessary call_depth parameter in merge-recursive.
      Allow the user to control the verbosity of merge-recursive.
      Enable output buffering in merge-recursive.
      Display a progress meter during merge-recursive.
      Convert output messages in merge-recursive to past tense.
      Always perfer annotated tags in git-describe.
      Hash tags by commit SHA1 in git-describe.
      Use binary searching on large buckets in git-describe.
      Improve git-describe performance by reducing revision listing.
      Correct priority of lightweight tags in git-describe.
      Remove hash in git-describe in favor of util slot.
      Use nice names in conflict markers during cherry-pick/revert.
      Document the master@{n} reflog query syntax.
      Refer users to git-rev-parse for revision specification syntax.
      Document pack .idx file format upgrade strategy.

Simon 'corecode' Schubert (2):
      Use fixed-size integers for the on-disk pack structure.
      Use standard -t option for touch.

Uwe Kleine-König (4):
      document --exec for git-push
      Update documentation of fetch-pack, push and send-pack
      make --exec=... option to git-push configurable
      rename --exec to --receive-pack for push and send-pack

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Junio C Hamano]

BTW, as the upcoming v1.5.0 release will introduce quite a bit of
surface changes (although at the really core it still is the old
git and old ways should continue to work), I am wondering if it
would help people to try out and find wrinkles before the real
thing for me to cut a tarball and a set of RPM packages.

Comments?

Also, in the same spirit of giving the release an early
exposure, here is the current draft of 1.5.0 release notes.

-- >8 -- cut here -- >8 --

GIT v1.5.0 Release Notes (draft)
================================

Old news
--------

This section is for people who are upgrading from ancient
versions of git.  Although all of the changes in this section
happened before the current v1.4.4 release, they are summarized
here in the v1.5.0 release notes for people who skipped earlier
versions.

In general, you should not have to worry about incompatibility,
and there is no need to perform "repository conversion" if you
are updating to v1.5.0.  However, some of the changes are
one-way street upgrades; once you use them your repository
can no longer be used with ancient git.

 - There is a configuration variable core.legacyheaders that
   changes the format of loose objects so that they are more
   efficient to pack and to send out of the repository over git
   native protocol, since v1.4.2.  However, loose objects
   written in the new format cannot be read by git older than
   that version; people fetching from your repository using
   older clients over dumb transports (e.g. http) using older
   versions of git will also be affected.

 - Since v1.4.3, configuration repack.usedeltabaseoffset allows
   packfile to be created in more space efficient format, which
   cannot be read by git older than that version.

The above two are not enabled by default and you explicitly have
to ask for them, because these two features make repositories
unreadable by older versions of git, and in v1.5.0 we still do
not enable them by default for the same reason.  We will change
this default probably 1 year after 1.4.2's release, when it is
reasonable to expect everybody to have new enough version of
git.

 - 'git pack-refs' appeared in v1.4.4; this command allows tags
   to be accessed much more efficiently than the traditional
   'one-file-per-tag' format.  Older git-native clients can
   still fetch from a repository that packed and pruned refs
   (the server side needs to run the up-to-date version of git),
   but older dumb transports cannot.  Packing of refs is done by
   an explicit user action, either by use of "git pack-refs
   --prune" command or by use of "git gc" command.

 - 'git -p' to paginate anything -- many commands do pagination
   by default on a tty.  Introduced between v1.4.1 and v1.4.2;
   this may surprise old timers.

 - 'git archive' superseded 'git tar-tree' in v1.4.3;

 - 'git cvsserver' was new invention in v1.3.0;

 - 'git repo-config', 'git grep', 'git rebase' and 'gitk' were
   seriously enhanced during v1.4.0 timeperiod.

 - 'gitweb' became part of git.git during v1.4.0 timeperiod and
   seriously modified since then.

 - reflog is an v1.4.0 invention.  This allows you to name a
   revision that a branch used to be at (e.g. "git diff
   master@{yesterday} master" allows you to see changes since
   yesterday's tip of the branch).


Updates in v1.5.0 since v1.4.4 series
-------------------------------------

* Index manipulation

 - git-add is to add contents to the index (aka "staging area"
   for the next commit), whether the file the contents happen to
   be is an existing one or a newly created one.

 - git-add without any argument does not add everything
   anymore.  Use 'git-add .' instead.  Also you can add
   otherwise ignored files with an -f option.

 - git-add tries to be more friendly to users by offering an
   interactive mode.

 - git-commit <path> used to refuse to commit if <path> was
   different between HEAD and the index (i.e. update-index was
   used on it earlier).  This check was removed.

 - git-rm is much saner and safer.  It is used to remove paths
   from both the index file and the working tree, and makes sure
   you are not losing any local modification before doing so.

 - git-reset <tree> <paths>... can be used to revert index
   entries for selected paths.

 - git-update-index is much less visible.


* Repository layout and objects transfer

 - The data for origin repository is stored in the configuration
   file $GIT_DIR/config, not in $GIT_DIR/remotes/, for newly
   created clones.  The latter is still supported and there is
   no need to convert your existing repository if you are
   already comfortable with your workflow with the layout.

 - git-clone always uses what is known as "separate remote"
   layout for a newly created repository with a working tree;
   i.e. tracking branches in $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/origin/ are
   used to track branches from the origin.  

 - New branches that appear on the origin side after a clone is
   made are also tracked automatically.  This is done with an
   wildcard refspec "refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*", which
   older git does not understand, so if you clone with 1.5.0,
   you would need to downgrade remote.*.fetch in the
   configuration file to specify each branch you are interested
   in individually if you plan to fetch into the repository with
   older versions of git (but why would you?).

 - git-branch and git-show-branch know remote tracking branches.

 - git-push can now be used to delete a remote branch or a tag.
   This requires the updated git on the remote side.

 - git-push more agressively keeps the transferred objects
   packed.  Earlier we recommended to monitor amount of loose
   objects and repack regularly, but you should repack when you
   accumulated too many small packs this way as well.  Updated
   git-count-objects helps you with this.

 - A new command, git-remote, can help you manage your remote
   tracking branch definitions.


* Bare repositories

 - Certain commands change their behaviour in a bare repository
   (i.e. a repository without associated working tree).  We use
   a fairly conservative heuristic (if $GIT_DIR is ".git", or
   ends with "/.git", the repository is not bare) to decide if a
   repository is bare, but "core.bare" configuration variable
   can be used to override the heuristic when it misidentifies
   your repository.

 - git-fetch used to complain updating the current branch but
   this is now allowed for a bare repository.  So is the use of
   'git-branch -f' to update the current branch.

 - Porcelain-ish commands that require a working tree refuses to
   work in a bare repository.


* Reflog

 - Reflog records the history of where the tip of each branch
   was at each moment.  This facility is enabled by default for
   repositories with working trees, and can be accessed with the
   "branch@{time}" and "branch@{Nth}" notation.

 - "git show-branch" learned showing the reflog data with the
   new --reflog option.  "git log" has --walk-reflogs option to
   view reflog entries in a more verbose manner.

 - git-branch knows how to rename branches and moves existing
   reflog data from the old branch to the new one.

 - The commits referred to by reflog entries are now protected
   against pruning.  The new command "git reflog expire" can be
   used to truncate older reflog entries and entries that refer
   to commits that have been pruned away previously with older
   versions of git.

   Existing repositories that have been using reflog may get
   complaints from fsck-objects and may not be able to run
   git-repack, if you had run git-prune from older git; please
   run "git reflog expire --stale-fix --all" first to remove
   reflog entries that refer to commits that are no longer in
   the repository when that happens.


* Crufts removal

 - We used to say "old commits are retrievable using reflog and
   'master@{yesterday}' syntax as long as you haven't run
   git-prune".  We no longer have to say the latter half of the
   above sentence, as git-prune does not remove things reachable
   from reflog entries.

 - 'git-prune' by default does not remove _everything_
   unreachable, as there is a one-day grace period built-in.

 - There is a toplevel garbage collector script, 'git-gc', that
   is an easy way to run 'git-repack -a -d', 'git-reflog gc',
   and 'git-prune'.


* Detached HEAD

 - You can give non-branch to "git checkout" now.  This will
   dissociate your HEAD from any of your branches.  A typical
   use of this feature is to "look around".  E.g.

	$ git checkout v2.6.16
	... compile, test, etc.
	$ git checkout v2.6.17
	... compile, test, etc.

 - After detaching your HEAD, you can go back to an existing
   branch with usual "git checkout $branch".  Also you can
   start a new branch using "git checkout -b $newbranch".

 - You can even pull from other repositories, make merges and
   commits while your HEAD is detached.  Also you can use "git
   reset" to jump to arbitrary commit.

   Going back to undetached state by "git checkout $branch" can
   lose the current stat you arrived in these ways, and "git
   checkout" refuses when the detached HEAD is not pointed by
   any existing ref (an existing branch, a remote tracking
   branch or a tag).  This safety can be overriden with "git
   checkout -f $branch".


* Packed refs

 - Repositories with hundreds of tags have been paying large
   overhead, both in storage and in runtime, due to the
   traditional one-ref-per-file format.  A new command,
   git-pack-refs, can be used to "pack" them in more efficient
   representation.

 - Clones and fetches over dumb transports are now aware of
   packed refs and can download from repositories that use
   them.


* Configuration

 - configuration related to color setting are consolidated under
   color.* namespace (older diff.color.*, status.color.* are
   still supported).


* Less external dependency

 - We no longer require the "merge" program from the RCS suite.
   All 3-way file-level merges are now done internally.

 - The original implementation of git-merge-recursive which was
   in Python has been removed; we have C implementation of it
   now.

 - git-shortlog is no longer a Perl script.  It no longer
   requires output piped from git-log; it can accept revision
   parameters directly on the command line.


* I18n

 - We have always encouraged the commit message to be encoded in
   UTF-8, but the users are allowed to use legacy encoding as
   appropriate for their projects.  This will continue to be the
   case.  However, a non UTF-8 commit encoding _must_ be
   explicitly set with i18n.commitencoding in the repository
   where a commit is made; otherwise git-commit-tree will
   complain if the log message does not look like a valid UTF-8
   string.

 - The value of i18n.commitencoding in the originating
   repository is recorded in the commit object on the "encoding"
   header, if it is not UTF-8.  git-log and friends notice this,
   and reencodes the message to the log output encoding when
   displaying, if they are different.  The log output encoding
   is determined by "git log --encoding=<encoding>",
   i18n.logoutputencoding configuration, or i18n.commitencoding
   configuration, in the decreasing order of preference, and
   defaults to UTF-8. 

 - Tools for e-mailed patch application now default to -u
   behaviour; i.e. it always re-codes from the e-mailed encoding
   to the encoding specified with i18n.commitencoding.  This
   unfortunately forces projects that have happily been using a
   legacy encoding without setting i18n.commitencoding to set
   the configuration, but taken with other improvement, please
   excuse us for this very minor one-time inconvenience.


* e-mailed patches

 - See the above I18n section.

 - git-format-patch now enables --binary without being asked.
   git-am does _not_ default to it, as sending binary patch via
   e-mail is unusual and is harder to review than textual
   patches and it is prudent to require the person who is
   applying the patch to explicitly ask for it.

 - The default suffix for git-format-patch output is now ".patch",
   not ".txt".  This can be changed with --suffix=.txt option,
   or "format.suffix = .txt" in the configuration.


* Foreign SCM interfaces

  - git-svn now requires the Perl SVN:: libraries, the
    command-line backend was too slow and limited.

  - the 'commit' subcommand of git-svn has been renamed to
    'set-tree', and 'dcommit' is the recommended replacement for
    day-to-day work.


* User support

 - Quite a lot of documentation updates.

 - Bash completion scripts have been updated heavily.

 - Better error messages for often used Porcelainish commands.


* Sliding mmap

 - We used to assume that we can mmap the whole packfile while
   in use, but with a large project this consumes huge virtual
   memory space and truly huge ones would not fit in the
   userland address space on 32-bit platforms.  We now mmap huge
   packfile in pieces to avoid this problem.


* Shallow clones

 - There is a partial support for 'shallow' repositories that
   keeps only recent history.  A 'shallow clone' is created by
   specifying how deep that truncated history should be.

   Currently a shallow repository has number of limitations:

   - Cloning and fetching _from_ a shallow clone are not
     supported (nor tested -- so they might work by accident but
     they are not expected to).

   - Pushing from nor into a shallow clone are not expected to
     work.

   - Merging inside a shallow repository would work as long as a
     merge base is found in the recent history, but otherwise it
     will be like merging unrelated histories and may result in
     huge conflicts.

   but this would be more than adequate for people who want to
   look at near the tip of a big project with a deep history and
   send patches in e-mail format.

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Bill Lear]

On Sunday, January 21, 2007 at 03:20:06 (-0800) Junio C Hamano writes:
>BTW, as the upcoming v1.5.0 release will introduce quite a bit of
>surface changes (although at the really core it still is the old
>git and old ways should continue to work), I am wondering if it
>would help people to try out and find wrinkles before the real
>thing for me to cut a tarball and a set of RPM packages.
>
>Comments?

I asked this in the context of the "fatal: protocol error"
thread, but can I install the 1.5.0rcX on my machine and use
it with our company repository, running 1.4.4.1?

In any case, I think trying to find wrinkles before the real
thing is certainly healthy.


Bill

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Bill Lear]

Also (apologies for the ignorance), how do I get the 1.5.0-rc2 release?


Bill

On Sunday, January 21, 2007 at 07:42:56 (-0600) Bill Lear writes:
>On Sunday, January 21, 2007 at 03:20:06 (-0800) Junio C Hamano writes:
>>BTW, as the upcoming v1.5.0 release will introduce quite a bit of
>>surface changes (although at the really core it still is the old
>>git and old ways should continue to work), I am wondering if it
>>would help people to try out and find wrinkles before the real
>>thing for me to cut a tarball and a set of RPM packages.
>>
>>Comments?
>
>I asked this in the context of the "fatal: protocol error"
>thread, but can I install the 1.5.0rcX on my machine and use
>it with our company repository, running 1.4.4.1?
>
>In any case, I think trying to find wrinkles before the real
>thing is certainly healthy.
>
>
>Bill
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Bill Lear wrote:

> Also (apologies for the ignorance), how do I get the 1.5.0-rc2 release?

Direct your browser to

http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=snapshot;h=eaf6459e4d482af51429f9464125621b805eb5f

BTW please don't top post. It uses bandwidth unnecessarily (both in terms 
of megabytes and attention).

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Jakub Narebski]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Bill Lear wrote:
> 
>> Also (apologies for the ignorance), how do I get the 1.5.0-rc2 release?
> 
> Direct your browser to
> 
> http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=snapshot;h=eaf6459e4d482af51429f9464125621b805eb5f

Better URL is

  http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=snapshot;h=v1.5.0-rc2

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Bill Lear wrote:
> > 
> >> Also (apologies for the ignorance), how do I get the 1.5.0-rc2 release?
> > 
> > Direct your browser to
> > 
> > http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=snapshot;h=eaf6459e4d482af51429f9464125621b805eb5f
> 
> Better URL is
> 
>   http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=snapshot;h=v1.5.0-rc2

It is a better URL. Somehow I fscked up when I tried it, so I had the 
impression that does not work. But it does.

Sorry,
Dscho

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Jakub Narebski]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Bill Lear wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Also (apologies for the ignorance), how do I get the 1.5.0-rc2 release?
>>> 
>>> Direct your browser to
>>> 
>>> http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=snapshot;h=eaf6459e4d482af51429f9464125621b805eb5f
>> 
>> Better URL is
>> 
>>   http://repo.or.cz/w/git.git?a=snapshot;h=v1.5.0-rc2
> 
> It is a better URL. Somehow I fscked up when I tried it, so I had the 
> impression that does not work. But it does.

Most probably you wrote '1.5.0-rc2' instead of 'v1.5.0-rc2'
(with 'v' prefix).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Willy Tarreau]

Hi Junio !

On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 03:20:06AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> BTW, as the upcoming v1.5.0 release will introduce quite a bit of
> surface changes (although at the really core it still is the old
> git and old ways should continue to work), I am wondering if it
> would help people to try out and find wrinkles before the real
> thing for me to cut a tarball and a set of RPM packages.
> 
> Comments?

Anything you can do to make tester's life easier will always slightly
increase the number of testers. Hint: how often do you try random
software that requires that you first install CVS, SVN or arch just to
get it, compared to how often you try random software provided as tar.gz ?
Pre-release tar.gz and rpms coupled with a freshmeat announcement should
get you a bunch of testers and newcomers. This will give the new doc a
real trial, and will help discover traps in which beginners often fall.

> Also, in the same spirit of giving the release an early
> exposure, here is the current draft of 1.5.0 release notes.

(...)

>  - There is a configuration variable core.legacyheaders that
>    changes the format of loose objects so that they are more
>    efficient to pack and to send out of the repository over git
>    native protocol, since v1.4.2.  However, loose objects
>    written in the new format cannot be read by git older than
>    that version; people fetching from your repository using
>    older clients over dumb transports (e.g. http) using older
>    versions of git will also be affected.
> 
>  - Since v1.4.3, configuration repack.usedeltabaseoffset allows
>    packfile to be created in more space efficient format, which
>    cannot be read by git older than that version.

I know it's a bit late to ask, but if new on-disk format changes, isn't
it time to bump the version to 2.0 ? It would be easier for many people to
remember that GIT 1.X uses format version 1 and that GIT 2.X uses format
version 2 with backwards compatibility with 1.X. I also think that 1.5
is much more different from 1.0 than a mid-term 2.0 would be from current
1.5.

That said, kudos for the nice changelog !

Regards,
Willy

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Jakub Narebski]

Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 03:20:06AM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>> BTW, as the upcoming v1.5.0 release will introduce quite a bit of
>> surface changes (although at the really core it still is the old
>> git and old ways should continue to work), I am wondering if it
>> would help people to try out and find wrinkles before the real
>> thing for me to cut a tarball and a set of RPM packages.
>> 
>> Comments?
> 
> Anything you can do to make tester's life easier will always slightly
> increase the number of testers. Hint: how often do you try random
> software that requires that you first install CVS, SVN or arch just to
> get it, compared to how often you try random software provided as tar.gz ?
> Pre-release tar.gz and rpms coupled with a freshmeat announcement should
> get you a bunch of testers and newcomers. This will give the new doc a
> real trial, and will help discover traps in which beginners often fall.

RPMS are nicely divided into (sub)packages, so you need CVS indtalled
only if you install git-cvs package, for example to interact with CVS.
git-core has minimal dependencies.

To compile git you truly don't need other software installed (1.5.0
for example does not require RCS anymore for RCS merge).
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Junio C Hamano]

Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> writes:

> Anything you can do to make tester's life easier will always slightly
> increase the number of testers.
> ...
> Pre-release tar.gz and rpms coupled with a freshmeat announcement should
> get you a bunch of testers and newcomers. This will give the new doc a
> real trial, and will help discover traps in which beginners often fall.

One worry I had about releasing git-1.5.0-rc2-1.rpm and friends
just like the "official" ones was that people might have scripts
to automate downloading & updating of packages, and they may not
like to get "beta" installed for them.

I wonder if kernel.org machines are also affected...

>> Also, in the same spirit of giving the release an early
>> exposure, here is the current draft of 1.5.0 release notes.
>
> (...)
>
>>  - There is a configuration variable core.legacyheaders that
>>    changes the format of loose objects so that they are more
>>    efficient to pack and to send out of the repository over git
>>    native protocol, since v1.4.2.  However, loose objects
>>    written in the new format cannot be read by git older than
>>    that version; people fetching from your repository using
>>    older clients over dumb transports (e.g. http) using older
>>    versions of git will also be affected.
>> 
>>  - Since v1.4.3, configuration repack.usedeltabaseoffset allows
>>    packfile to be created in more space efficient format, which
>>    cannot be read by git older than that version.
>
> I know it's a bit late to ask, but if new on-disk format changes, isn't
> it time to bump the version to 2.0? It would be easier for many people to
> remember that GIT 1.X uses format version 1 and that GIT 2.X uses format
> version 2 with backwards compatibility with 1.X. I also think that 1.5
> is much more different from 1.0 than a mid-term 2.0 would be from current
> 1.5.

I think we could have gone either way (as you said, it is
probably a bit too late to discuss this), but it should probably
be Ok to stay at 1.X as long as these one-way-street format
updates are turned off by default.

And the above happened way before this round and people have
hopefully been happily using.  For example, v1.4.2 was done
early August 2006.

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[H. Peter Anvin]

Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> One worry I had about releasing git-1.5.0-rc2-1.rpm and friends
> just like the "official" ones was that people might have scripts
> to automate downloading & updating of packages, and they may not
> like to get "beta" installed for them.
> 
> I wonder if kernel.org machines are also affected...
> 

Put them in a different directory hierarchy if you don't want to make 
them installed.

>> I know it's a bit late to ask, but if new on-disk format changes, isn't
>> it time to bump the version to 2.0? It would be easier for many people to
>> remember that GIT 1.X uses format version 1 and that GIT 2.X uses format
>> version 2 with backwards compatibility with 1.X. I also think that 1.5
>> is much more different from 1.0 than a mid-term 2.0 would be from current
>> 1.5.
> 
> I think we could have gone either way (as you said, it is
> probably a bit too late to discuss this), but it should probably
> be Ok to stay at 1.X as long as these one-way-street format
> updates are turned off by default.
> 
> And the above happened way before this round and people have
> hopefully been happily using.  For example, v1.4.2 was done
> early August 2006.

In general, though, I would agree that the major number should change if 
there is an incompatible change.

	-hpa

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:

> In general, though, I would agree that the major number should change if there
> is an incompatible change.

Maybe when those incompatible features are enabled by default.  Right 
now they're not.


Nicolas

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Horst H. von Brand]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> writes:
> > Anything you can do to make tester's life easier will always slightly
> > increase the number of testers.
> > ...
> > Pre-release tar.gz and rpms coupled with a freshmeat announcement should
> > get you a bunch of testers and newcomers. This will give the new doc a
> > real trial, and will help discover traps in which beginners often fall.
> 
> One worry I had about releasing git-1.5.0-rc2-1.rpm and friends
> just like the "official" ones was that people might have scripts
> to automate downloading & updating of packages, and they may not
> like to get "beta" installed for them.

Then put them into a "testing" or "pre-release" directory...
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                    Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria             +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile               Fax:  +56 32 2797513

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Junio C Hamano]

"Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
>> Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu> writes:
>> > Anything you can do to make tester's life easier will always slightly
>> > increase the number of testers.
>> > ...
>> > Pre-release tar.gz and rpms coupled with a freshmeat announcement should
>> > get you a bunch of testers and newcomers. This will give the new doc a
>> > real trial, and will help discover traps in which beginners often fall.
>> 
>> One worry I had about releasing git-1.5.0-rc2-1.rpm and friends
>> just like the "official" ones was that people might have scripts
>> to automate downloading & updating of packages, and they may not
>> like to get "beta" installed for them.
>
> Then put them into a "testing" or "pre-release" directory...

Ok, thanks for the suggestion.

The preview RPMs for i386 and x86_64 and an SRPM are available at:

	/pub/software/scm/git/testing/

The tarball for 1.5.0-rc2 is found at:

	/pub/software/scm/git/git-1.5.0.rc2.tar.gz

along with tarballs of preformatted htmldocs and manpages.

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Horst H. von Brand]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> BTW, as the upcoming v1.5.0 release will introduce quite a bit of
> surface changes (although at the really core it still is the old
> git and old ways should continue to work), I am wondering if it
> would help people to try out and find wrinkles before the real
> thing for me to cut a tarball and a set of RPM packages.
> 
> Comments?
> 
> Also, in the same spirit of giving the release an early
> exposure, here is the current draft of 1.5.0 release notes.
> 
> -- >8 -- cut here -- >8 --
> 
> GIT v1.5.0 Release Notes (draft)
> ================================
> 
> Old news
> --------

[...]

>  - There is a configuration variable core.legacyheaders that
>    changes the format of loose objects so that they are more
>    efficient to pack and to send out of the repository over git
>    native protocol, since v1.4.2.  However, loose objects
>    written in the new format cannot be read by git older than
>    that version; people fetching from your repository using
>    older clients over dumb transports (e.g. http) using older
>    versions of git will also be affected.

Huh?

What are possible values of that variable? What happens if it is set/unset?
I'd suppose that if it is set, you get the old format, but that isn't clear.

>  - Since v1.4.3, configuration repack.usedeltabaseoffset allows
>    packfile to be created in more space efficient format, which
>    cannot be read by git older than that version.

Same as above.

> The above two are not enabled by default and you explicitly have
> to ask for them, because these two features make repositories
> unreadable by older versions of git, and in v1.5.0 we still do
> not enable them by default for the same reason.  We will change
> this default probably 1 year after 1.4.2's release, when it is
> reasonable to expect everybody to have new enough version of
> git.

I don't see an upgrade path here that doesn't involve keeping cruft "new
feature is on" variables around indefinitely... Why not just a repository
version?

[...]

> Updates in v1.5.0 since v1.4.4 series
> -------------------------------------
> 
> * Index manipulation

[...]

>  - git-add without any argument does not add everything
>    anymore.  Use 'git-add .' instead.  Also you can add
>    otherwise ignored files with an -f option.

I suppose "git add ." works for 'adding everything' only at the top?

>  - git-add tries to be more friendly to users by offering an
>    interactive mode.

Why not tell about "git add -i"?

[...]

> * Detached HEAD

[...]

>  - After detaching your HEAD, you can go back to an existing
>    branch with usual "git checkout $branch".  Also you can
>    start a new branch using "git checkout -b $newbranch".

Where is such a branch rooted?

>  - You can even pull from other repositories, make merges and
>    commits while your HEAD is detached.  Also you can use "git
>    reset" to jump to arbitrary commit.

Does this leave you on that branch, or still in limbo?

>    Going back to undetached state by "git checkout $branch" can

s/undetached/attached/

>    lose the current stat you arrived in these ways, and "git
>    checkout" refuses when the detached HEAD is not pointed by
>    any existing ref (an existing branch, a remote tracking
>    branch or a tag).  This safety can be overriden with "git
>    checkout -f $branch".

What happens if there are changes in the tracked files?

[...]

> * Shallow clones
> 
>  - There is a partial support for 'shallow' repositories that
>    keeps only recent history.  A 'shallow clone' is created by
>    specifying how deep that truncated history should be.

A bit of detail on how to specify shallowness would be nice here...


Very nice work, thanks!
-- 
Dr. Horst H. von Brand                   User #22616 counter.li.org
Departamento de Informatica                    Fono: +56 32 2654431
Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria             +56 32 2654239
Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile               Fax:  +56 32 2797513

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>  - 'git pack-refs' appeared in v1.4.4;

You should probably mention that it is not necessary to run git-pack-refs 
by hand: git-gc is what you want.

BTW have I praised y'all for inventing git-gc? It is _awesome_. I think I 
will turn into a DWIM geek yet; it is soooo much more convenient to issue 
"git gc" from time to time, than to think exactly about what I want to 
clean up right now.

>  - 'git repo-config', 'git grep', 'git rebase' and 'gitk' were
>    seriously enhanced during v1.4.0 timeperiod.

Should we introduce "git config" in time for the "let's please end-users" 
release (1.5.0)?

>  - git-clone always uses what is known as "separate remote"
>    layout for a newly created repository with a working tree;
>    i.e. tracking branches in $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/origin/ are
>    used to track branches from the origin.  

... instead of $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/, making the difference between 
remotely tracked and local branches more obvious.

>  - git-branch and git-show-branch know remote tracking branches.

... (use the command line switch "-r" to list only tracked branches.)

>  - git-push can now be used to delete a remote branch or a tag.
>    This requires the updated git on the remote side.

... (use "git push <remote> :refs/heads/<branch>" to delete "branch".)

>  - git-push more agressively keeps the transferred objects
>    packed.  Earlier we recommended to monitor amount of loose
>    objects and repack regularly, but you should repack when you
>    accumulated too many small packs this way as well.  Updated
>    git-count-objects helps you with this.

It might make sense to enable something similar for git-fetch in time for 
1.5.0.

> * Reflog
> 
>  - Reflog records the history of where the tip of each branch
>    was at each moment.

It might make sense to reformulate that:

	Reflog records the history from the view point of the local 
	repository. In other words, regardless of the real history,
	the reflog shows the history as seen by one particular repository
	(this enables you to ask "what was the current revision in _this_
	repository, yesterday at 1pm?").

>  - There is a toplevel garbage collector script, 'git-gc', that
>    is an easy way to run 'git-repack -a -d', 'git-reflog gc',
>    and 'git-prune'.

Did I mention that I really _love_ git-gc?

>  - The original implementation of git-merge-recursive which was
>    in Python has been removed; we have C implementation of it
>    now.

I am no native speaker, but should that not be "we have a C 
implementation" instead?

>  - The default suffix for git-format-patch output is now ".patch",
>    not ".txt".  This can be changed with --suffix=.txt option,
>    or "format.suffix = .txt" in the configuration.

I fully expect people to complain that a config like this

	format.suffix = .txt

does not work. better say ...

	or setting the config variable "format.suffix" to ".txt".

>  - Better error messages for often used Porcelainish commands.

Amen. I think this really helped a lot of people already.

>    - Cloning and fetching _from_ a shallow clone are not
>      supported (nor tested -- so they might work by accident but
>      they are not expected to).

Maybe we should go the "restrict first, and loosen later" approach? I.e. 
forbid git-upload-pack to run if is_repository_shallow()?

>    - Pushing from nor into a shallow clone are not expected to
>      work.

Maybe forbid git-push and git-receive-pack to run if 
is_repository_shallow()?

(I _think_ git-push should be safe, but not git-receive-pack.)

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Jakub Narebski]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

>> * Reflog
>> 
>>  - Reflog records the history of where the tip of each branch
>>    was at each moment.
> 
> It might make sense to reformulate that:
> 
>       Reflog records the history from the view point of the local 
>       repository. In other words, regardless of the real history,
>       the reflog shows the history as seen by one particular repository
>       (this enables you to ask "what was the current revision in _this_
>       repository, yesterday at 1pm?").

I think that _both_ sentences are right. Reflog records history of where the
tip of each branch was at each moment, logging also what command was used
to move tip of branch (was it commit, amending commit, rebase, reset, or
creating branch anew, git-am or pull).

But where tip of each branch was is purely local matter. What is global
is DAG of commits, refs are always as seen by one particular repository.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4897 bytes --]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 03:20:06 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Also, in the same spirit of giving the release an early
> exposure, here is the current draft of 1.5.0 release notes.

Thanks, these are very good and really show how much great progress
has gone into git recently. Congratulations to everyone who has helped
with this!

A few comments:

> In general, you should not have to worry about incompatibility,
> and there is no need to perform "repository conversion" if you
> are updating to v1.5.0.  However, some of the changes are
> one-way street upgrades; once you use them your repository
> can no longer be used with ancient git.

This "one-way street upgrades" sentence makes the upgrade to 1.5 sound
scarier than it really is. It's only after two more paragraphs of
fairly dense technical content that the reader is told that none of
this stuff is enabled by default yet.

Maybe replace the second sentence with something like:

	As of git v1.5.0 there are some optional changes to the
	repository that allow data to be stored and transferred more
	efficiently. These changes are not enabled by default as they
	will make the repository unusable with git versions before
	v1.4.2. Specifically the available options are:

or something along those lines.

>  - git-update-index is much less visible.

It's not clear what this sentence means. Perhaps add something like:

	, (many mentions of update-index in git output and
	documentation have now been replaced by simpler commands such
	as "git add" or "git rm").

>  - git-clone always uses what is known as "separate remote"
>    layout for a newly created repository with a working tree;
>    i.e. tracking branches in $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/origin/ are
>    used to track branches from the origin.

This change has some workflow impact that is not at all obvious from
the above description. For example, after cloning git.git, things that
used to work like "git checkout -b my-next next" now no longer work,
(needing to use "origin/next" instead). And these branches also won't
appear in "git branch" output, (without the new -r option).

I think the release notes should spend a little more attention on an
issue like this. Maybe a separate section on changes to existing
interfaces, (as opposed to most of the other changes which are
improvements in the implementation of existing interfaces or just
plain new interfaces such as "git remote", "git gc", etc.)

If there is a new section, the previous paragraphs describing the move
of cloned origin information from .git/remotes/origin to .git/config
might belong there as well, (depending on whether you consider those
file contents a user-visible interface or not).

>  - git-branch and git-show-branch know remote tracking branches.

Should mention "-r" here.

>  - git-push can now be used to delete a remote branch or a tag.
>    This requires the updated git on the remote side.

What's the syntax for this? I know you don't want to turn the release
notes into a user manual, but it'd be nice to have brief mentions of
the new interfaces, (like the nice mention of "git add -i" for
example). Even with a quick skim through the git-push documentation,
I'm not immediately seeing how to delete a remote branch or tag.

>  - There is a toplevel garbage collector script, 'git-gc', that
>    is an easy way to run 'git-repack -a -d', 'git-reflog gc',
>    and 'git-prune'.

I think it's definitely worthwhile to note the fix of race conditions,
etc. here. It would be nice to have some short rule such as:

	"git gc" is free from any known race conditions with
	simultaneous git processes modifying the repository. So it's
	perfectly safe to run "git gc" from a cron job.

Or a similarly succinct rule that's actually true, (I think the recent
thread suggested "git gc" would only be safe with an extra
option---I'd much rather see it be safe by default and make the user
ask for extra unsafe pruning with an option).

>  - You can give non-branch to "git checkout" now.

Rather than "non-branch" I think it would be nice to say something
that mentioned tags. Maybe something like:

	You can now use 'git checkout' to checkout tags or any other
	revision, rather than just named branches."

>  - Repositories with hundreds of tags have been paying large
>    overhead, both in storage and in runtime, due to the
>    traditional one-ref-per-file format.  A new command,
>    git-pack-refs, can be used to "pack" them in more efficient
>    representation.

Is git-gc doing this housekeeping? If not, should it be? If so, should
it be mentioned here (and in the description of git-gc above)?

>  - There is a partial support for 'shallow' repositories that
>    keeps only recent history.  A 'shallow clone' is created by
>    specifying how deep that truncated history should be.

Here's another description that could definitely benefit from a very
short example command.

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Junio C Hamano]

Thanks for your comments; the attached probably needs
proofreading.

The changes in response to the remainder of your comments are
quite straightforward and I do not think needs proofreading, so
I'll incorporate them and push the result out in 'todo'.

diff --git a/v1.5.0.txt b/v1.5.0.txt
index c0ff071..596bfd2 100644
--- a/v1.5.0.txt
+++ b/v1.5.0.txt
@@ -107,11 +107,40 @@ Updates in v1.5.0 since v1.4.4 series
    already comfortable with your workflow with the layout.
 
  - git-clone always uses what is known as "separate remote"
-   layout for a newly created repository with a working tree;
-   i.e. tracking branches in $GIT_DIR/refs/remotes/origin/ are
-   used to track branches from the origin, instead of
-   $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/, making the difference between remotely
-   tracked and local branches more obvious.
+   layout for a newly created repository with a working tree.
+
+   A repository with the separate remote layout starts with only
+   one default branch, 'master', to be used for your own
+   development.  Unlike the traditional layout that copied all
+   the upstream branches into your branch namespace (while
+   renaming their 'master' to your 'origin'), they are not made
+   into your branches.  Instead, they are kept track of using
+   'refs/remotes/origin/$upstream_branch_name'.
+
+   This layout keeps your own branch namespace less cluttered,
+   avoids name collision with your upstream, makes it possible
+   to automatically track new branches created at the remote
+   after you clone from it, and makes it easier to interact with
+   more than one remote repositories.  There might be some
+   surprises:
+
+   * 'git branch' does not show the branches from your upstream.
+     It only lists your own branches.  Use '-r' option to view
+     the tracking branches.
+
+   * If you are forking off of a branch obtained from the
+     upstream, you would have done something like 'git branch
+     my-next next', because traditional layout dropped the
+     tracking branch 'next' into your own branch namespace.
+     With the separate remote layout, you say 'git branch next
+     origin/next', which allows you to use the matching name
+     'next' for your own branch.  It also allows you to track a
+     remote other than 'origin' (i.e. where you initially cloned
+     from) and fork off of a branch from there the same way
+     (e.g. "git branch mingw j6t/master").
+
+   Repositories initialized with the traditional layout
+   continues to work (and will continue to work).
 
  - New branches that appear on the origin side after a clone is
    made are also tracked automatically.  This is done with an

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Carl Worth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2193 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 11:28:32 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Thanks for your comments;

You're welcome.

> the attached probably needs proofreading.

In general, I like it. The git-branch documentation already talks
about "remote-tracking branches" so I've rewritten a couple of
sentence below to use that same terminology. Also there are a couple
of grammar errors related to pluralization, (likely the fault of
English being quite a bit less consistent than other languages with
subject/verb number agreement, etc.).

> +   A repository with the separate remote layout starts with only
> +   one default branch, 'master', to be used for your own
> +   development.  Unlike the traditional layout that copied all
> +   the upstream branches into your branch namespace (while
> +   renaming their 'master' to your 'origin'), they are not made
> +   into your branches.  Instead, they are kept track of using
> +   'refs/remotes/origin/$upstream_branch_name'.

      renaming remote 'master' to local 'origin'), the new approach
      puts upstream branches into local "remote-tracking branches"
      with their own namespace. These can be referenced with names
      such as "origin/$upstream_branch_name" and are stored in
      .git/refs/remotes rather than .git/refs/heads where normal
      branches are stored.

> +   This layout keeps your own branch namespace less cluttered,
> +   avoids name collision with your upstream, makes it possible
> +   to automatically track new branches created at the remote
> +   after you clone from it, and makes it easier to interact with
> +   more than one remote repositories.  There might be some

Should be "more than one remote repository.". Also I'd add, ", (see
the new 'git remote' command)" before the end of that sentence.

> +   * 'git branch' does not show the branches from your upstream.

Again to use the same terminology, "does not show the remote-tracking
branches.".

> +   Repositories initialized with the traditional layout
> +   continues to work (and will continue to work).

The 's' on "continues" is incorrect. Perhaps:

	continue to work (and will work in the future as well).

or just drop the parenthetical phrase.

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [Announce] GIT v1.5.0-rc2

[Jakub Narebski]

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> GIT v1.5.0 Release Notes (draft)
> ================================

Would they be somewhere besides todo branch of git.git repository, like the
v1.5.0 tag comment (content), or the NEWS file?
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git