From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: basics... when reading docs doesn't help Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:23:12 -0400 Message-ID: <20070330202312.GG3198@thunk.org> References: <20070329211616.GH6143@fieldses.org> <7vabxv3fnx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <20070329214654.GI6143@fieldses.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , "J. Bruce Fields" , Junio C Hamano , git@vger.kernel.org To: Guennadi Liakhovetski X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Mar 30 22:23:34 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1HXNdE-0000E1-QH for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 22:23:33 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753587AbXC3UX3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:23:29 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753594AbXC3UX3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:23:29 -0400 Received: from thunk.org ([69.25.196.29]:41447 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753587AbXC3UX2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:23:28 -0400 Received: from root (helo=candygram.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with local-esmtps (tls_cipher TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA:32) (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1HXNiz-0006A3-TF; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:29:30 -0400 Received: from tytso by candygram.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1HXNcu-000669-GE; Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:23:12 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 09:49:20PM +0200, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote: > Aha, so, that's how it is then! Why hasn't anybody explained this to me > strait away?!:-)))) A lot of this is in the git 1.5's User Manual: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/user-manual.html See also the man page for git-remote, or here: http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-remote.html > Yeah, hopefully, I'll learn to at least use this thing efficiently enough. > Someone has to write a book on it though... The user-manual and the git tutorials are pretty good --- just make sure you look at the ones that come with git 1.5.0, or the ones at http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/svm/git/docs (which reflects the Documentation as of the latest development version of git). The problem is that there are some tutorials on the web which assume git 1.4.x, or cogito, and that has been listed as a defect by people who have been confused because those tutorials are out of date with respect to modern git.[1] [1] http://changelog.complete.org/posts/594-More-on-Git,-Mercurial,-and-Bzr.html > And, so, it's a pity I cloned Paul's tree yesterday with the "old" git. > And from your answer above it seems like some features of the "new" git > will not be available with this tree, like equally named local and remote > branches, etc. There isn't a way to convert such a "old style" tree to the > "new style", is there? Not a big deal, will re-clone at some point, maybe > when we get local git mirrors... Yeah, we need to really make sure the word gets out that new git users should really make sure they are using git 1.5, and not git 1.4.x; it is such an improvement in terms of usability over git 1.4.x that there really is no comparison. (Of course, guess what Debian is going to ship in their soon-to-be-release "stable" distribution? git 1.4.4. Sigh...) It is possible to get the new style naming, by using the git remote command. Just do git remote add origin ...and that will adjust your git configuration file appropriate. Check out the git 1.5.0 release notes, and the git-config man page, and there are some other adjustments you can make as well that will make git more efficiently, at the cost of breaking some level of compatibility with git 1.4.x tools which replicate via the "dumb" http protocol. But for local development repositories that generally isn't a concern. - Ted