A note from the maintainer

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Since there seem to be many new people on the git list, I
thought it might be worthwhile to talk about how git.git is
managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list.

The development is primarily done on this mailing list you are
reading right now.

If you have patches, please send them to the list, following
Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

The list is available at various public sites as well:

	http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
	http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel as well.  Its log is available at:

	http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git

[jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
 site?  It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
 page to get to the latest]


* Repositories and branches.

My public git.git repository is at:

	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

It is mirrored at Pasky's repo.or.cz as well.

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one is meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
I would have liked.  It also contains some helper scripts I
use to maintain it.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

	http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The script to auto-maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh script, if you are interested.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are reasonably
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.4.3 done on Oct 18th.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are typically named with four dotted decimal, named after the
feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
v1.4.3.2 was done tonight.  Usually new development will never
go to this branch.  This branch is also pulled into "master" to
propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often you
found your own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on
"master", however.  Instead, it is forked into a separate topic
branch from the tip of "master", and first tested in isolation;
I may make minimum fixups at this point.  Usually there are a
handful such topic branches that are running ahead of "master"
in git.git repository.  I do not publish the tip of these
branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry
about and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category with "master".  In general it should always
contain the tip of "master".  They may not be quite production
ready, but are expected to work more or less without major
breakage.  I usually use "next" version of git for my own work.
"next" is where new and exciting things take place.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (that means
the topics that have been merged into "next" are not rebased).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining
topic branches.  The topic branches and "pu" are subject to
rebasing in general.  Especially "pu" is almost always rewound
to the tip of "next" and reconstructed to contain the remaining
topic branches.  What this means is that immediately after
cloning from git.git, it is advisable to mark "pu" in your
remotes/origin that it does not necessarily fast-forwards, like
this:

	$ cat .git/remotes/origin
        URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
        Pull: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/origin
        Pull: refs/heads/maint:refs/heads/maint
        Pull: refs/heads/next:refs/heads/next
        Pull: +refs/heads/pu:refs/heads/pu

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  This is done by:

	git checkout next
        git pull . that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is _expected_ to be tweaked and fixed
to perfection before it is merged to "master".  It is done by:

	git checkout master
        git pull . that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" _is_ such a guarantee), or even
in _any_ future release.  There even was a case that a topic
needed a few reverting before graduating to "master".

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jakub Narebski]

Junio C Hamano wrote:

> * Mailing list.
> 
> The development is primarily done on this mailing list you are
> reading right now.
> 
> If you have patches, please send them to the list, following
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
> 
> The list is available at various public sites as well:
> 
>         http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
>         http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git

It is also available via GMane NNTP (mail to news) interface as

  nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

so you can read it using your favourite news reader, without need
to be subscribed to mailing list.

It is better to send patches via email, not via news as 1.) news reader are
more likely to munge whitespace, 2) mail<->news gateway might munge
whitespace on it's own, though.
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

It has been a while since I sent this message out the last time,
and there seem to be some new people on the git list.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can
work with it.


* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel.  Its log is available at:

	http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git

[jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
 site?  It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
 page to get to the latest]


The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now.  If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously
not perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
me.


The list from time to time gets messages that either

 - state something incorrect, with a certain authoritative tone,
   without doing minimum homework.

 - try to rehash issues that have been ruled some time ago
   without bringing anything new to the table,

I used to try responding to such messages quickly with pointers
to archived list messages and/or the name of the commit object
that settled the issue, in order to save other readers from
wasting time on them, but that has been a huge timesink for me,
so I'll stop doing so and simply ignore them.

This does not apply to messages from new people (the definition
of new is rather subjective --- if I cannot connect your name
with a specific contribution you made to the git community, you
are still new); I would welcome questions and comments from new
people on the list.  They are good sources for us to learn which
parts of git's concepts are harder to learn and which
documentation can be improved.


The list is available at a few public sites as well:

	http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
	http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git


* Repositories and branches.

My public git.git repository is at:

	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

It is mirrored at Pasky's repo.or.cz as well.

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one is meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
I would have liked.  It also contains some helper scripts I
use to maintain it.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

	http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The script to auto-maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh script, if you are interested.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are reasonably
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.4.4 done on Nov 14th last year.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are typically named with four dotted decimal, named after the
feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
v1.4.4.3.  Usually new development will never go to this branch.
This branch is also pulled into "master" to propagate the fixes
forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually
happen on "master", however.  Instead, it is forked into a
separate topic branch from the tip of "master", and first tested
in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.  Usually
there are a handful such topic branches that are running ahead
of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the tip of
these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep
the number of branches that downstream developers need to worry
about and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category with "master".  In general it should always
contain the tip of "master".  They may not be quite production
ready, but are expected to work more or less without major
breakage.  I usually use "next" version of git for my own work.
"next" is where new and exciting things take place.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (that means
the topics that have been merged into "next" are not rebased).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining
topic branches.  The topic branches and "pu" are subject to
rebasing in general.  Especially "pu" is almost always rewound
to the tip of "next" and reconstructed to contain the remaining
topic branches.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

	git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is _expected_ to be tweaked and fixed
to perfection before it is merged to "master".  I do this with:

	git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in _any_
future release.  There even was a case that a topic needed a few
reverting before graduating to "master".

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Shawn O. Pearce]

Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:
> I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
> all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
> obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously
> not perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
> anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
> was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
> me.

Though a contributor should probably check the `maint`, `master`,
`next` or `pu` branches of git.git before sending a reminder.

Often we find that you have accepted a patch without comment (as
the patch is obviously correct and nobody else had a reason to
comment on it).  In this case the patch will just appear in one of
the git.git branches, with no email indicating that.

-- 
Shawn.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

It has been a while since I sent this message out the last time,
so it may be a good time to send it with updates again.  There
seem to be some new people on the git list, especially now the
big release is out.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can
work with it.


* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel.  Its log is available at:

	http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git

[jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
 site?  It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
 page to get to the latest.]


The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now.  If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously
not perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

	http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
	http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

This is mirrored at Pasky's site at

	git://repo.or.cz/git.git/

but the first has a few hours mirroring delay after I publish
updates, and the latter, being a mirror of former, lags behind
it further.  Immediately after I publish to the primary
repository at kernel.org, I also push into an alternate here:

	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people would have better lack with the last one (but
the last repository does not have "html", "man" and "todo"
branches, described next).


There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

	http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

Starting from 1.5.0, the top-level documentation page has links
to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are reasonably
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.5.0 done on Feb 14th this year.  The
codename for that release is not "snog".

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are typically named with four dotted decimal, named after the
feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
v1.4.4.4, and I am expecting to cut v1.5.0.1 sometime soon.
Usually new development will never go to this branch.  This
branch is also merged into "master" to propagate the fixes
forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, it is forked into
a separate topic branch from the tip of "master", and first
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general it should always contain the tip of
"master".  They might not be quite production ready, but are
expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I usually
use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot be
_that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (that means
the topics that have been merged into "next" are not rebased).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

	git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master".  However, being in
"next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release (being
in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found
seriously broken and reverted), or even in any future release.
There even were cases that topics needed a few reverting before
graduating to "master", or a topic that already was in "next"
were reverted from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them
later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
             project, which is found at:

             git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 gitk     -- this file is maintained by Paul Packerras, at:

	     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
   Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Packerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Jakub Narebski and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Many active members of development community hang around on #git
> IRC channel.  Its log is available at:
> 
> 	http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git
> 
> [jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
>  site?  It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
>  page to get to the latest.]

[jes: just stumbled over it: 
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=]

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Many active members of development community hang around on #git
>> IRC channel.  Its log is available at:
>> 
>> 	http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git
>> 
>> [jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
>>  site?  It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
>>  page to get to the latest.]
>
> [jes: just stumbled over it: 
> http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=]

This (or its variant, just removing "?date=" at the end) seems
to work most of the time, except for close to day boundary.  I
do not know why.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Now a new feature release is out, it's time to welcome new
people to the list.  This message talks about how git.git is
managed, and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel.  Its log is available at:

	http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now.  If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously
not perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

	http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
	http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

	git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

This is mirrored at Pasky's site at

	git://repo.or.cz/git.git/

but the first has a few hours mirroring delay after I publish
updates, and the latter, being a mirror of former, lags behind
it further.  Immediately after I publish to the primary
repository at kernel.org, I also push into an alternate here:

	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people would have better luck with the last one (but
the last repository does not have "html", "man" and "todo"
branches, described next).

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

	http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.5.1 done on April 4th this year.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.0.7.
New features never goes to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are not rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in out of "git log next" output).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

	git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master".  Similarly to the
above I do it with this:

	git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed a few
reverting before graduating to "master", or a topic that already
was in "next" were reverted from "next" because fatal flaws were
found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
             project, which is found at:

             git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 gitk     -- this file is maintained by Paul Packerras, at:

	     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
   Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Packerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Jakub Narebski and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
people to the list.  This message talks about how git.git is managed,
and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now.  If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
	http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people would have better luck with the latter one, but it
does not have "html" and "man" branches (described below).

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.1") if we have
huge backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.5.2 done on May 20th this year.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.1.6.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are not rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
             project, which is found at:

             git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 gitk     -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:

             git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
   Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Jakub Narebski, Peter Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.


* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
people to the list.  This message talks about how git.git is managed,
and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now.  If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
	http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

	http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
	http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.1") if we have
huge backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.5.3 done on Sep 2nd this year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always as
stable as any of the released versions, if not more stable.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.2.5.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
Note that being in "next" does not mean the change will be in
the next feature release.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are not rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
             project, which is found at:

             git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 gitk     -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:

             git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
   Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin and Johannes Sixt for their effort to
   move things forward on the Windows front.  Although my
   repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
   I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
   can work from the same codebase.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Now a new maitenance release is out and we are reasonably in a
good shape to expect smooth progress toward the next feature
release, it's a good time to welcome new people to the list.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can
work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now.  If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.5.3 done on Sep 2nd last year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.3.8,
made tonight.  New features never go to this branch.  This
branch is also merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are never rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
             project, which is found at:

             git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 gitk     -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:

             git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   Réne Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin and Johannes Sixt for their effort to
   move things forward on the Windows front.  Although my
   repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
   I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
   can work from the same codebase.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jakub Narebski]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> * IRC and Mailing list
 
> When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
> gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
> 
>         http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
> 
> as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
> gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Isn't it better to give Message-ID (perhaps with addition to
some archive URLs)? This way one can search his/her own mail
archive; also (I think) all git mail archives support finding
article with given Message-ID (e.g. http://mid.gmane.org/<msg-id>
for GMane).
 
> * Repositories, branches and documentation.

> There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
> source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
> add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
> hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
> an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
> git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.

What about "offcuts" branch?

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>> * IRC and Mailing list
>  
>> When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
>> gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
>> 
>>         http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
>> 
>> as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
>> gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
>
> Isn't it better to give Message-ID (perhaps with addition to
> some archive URLs)?

Then please do so.  I have no problem with that.

But I am talking about practices of people who give pointer to
list archives as URL in this section, and I am just sick and
tired of seeing references to marc.info that does not give you
useful threaded interface.

> What about "offcuts" branch?

What about it?  It is not that relevant to people new to the
community.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
people to the list.  This message talks about how git.git is managed,
and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now.  If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.1") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was v1.5.4 done on Feb 2nd this year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.3.8.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are never rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
             project, which is found at:

             git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 gitk     -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:

             git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   Réne Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin and Johannes Sixt for their effort to
   move things forward on the Windows front.  Although my
   repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
   I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
   can work from the same codebase.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jakub Narebski]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
> people to the list.  This message talks about how git.git is managed,
> and how you can work with it.

> There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
> source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

Actually there are five: you didn't mention "offcuts" branch,
nor wrote what this branch is about (for example how it differs
from "pu").

>  gitk     -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:
> 
>              git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

It is gitk-git/ subdirectory now (why not simply gitk/ ?).

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.5.4 done on Feb 2nd this year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.4.2.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.  Although my
   repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
   I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
   can work from the same codebase.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.5.4 done on Feb 2nd this year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.4.4.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.  Although my
   repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
   I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
   can work from the same codebase.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.5.5 done on Apr 7th this year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.4.5.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.  Although my
   repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
   I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
   can work from the same codebase.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

[ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.6

[Junio C Hamano]

The latest feature release GIT 1.5.6 is available at the usual
places:

  http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/

  git-1.5.6.tar.{gz,bz2}			(tarball)
  git-htmldocs-1.5.6.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)
  git-manpages-1.5.6.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)
  RPMS/$arch/git-*-1.5.6-1.$arch.rpm	(RPM)

As promised, this cycle was short and the release is with only relatively
small impact changes.

----------------------------------------------------------------
GIT v1.5.6 Release Notes
========================

Updates since v1.5.5
--------------------

(subsystems)

* Comes with updated gitk and git-gui.

(portability)

* git will build on AIX better than before now.

* core.ignorecase configuration variable can be used to work better on
  filesystems that are not case sensitive.

* "git init" now autodetects the case sensitivity of the filesystem and
  sets core.ignorecase accordingly.

* cpio is no longer used; neither "curl" binary (libcurl is still used).

(documentation)

* Many freestanding documentation pages have been converted and made
  available to "git help" (aka "man git<something>") as section 7 of
  the manual pages. This means bookmarks to some HTML documentation
  files may need to be updated (eg "tutorial.html" became
  "gittutorial.html").

(performance)

* "git clone" was rewritten in C.  This will hopefully help cloning a
  repository with insane number of refs.

* "git rebase --onto $there $from $branch" used to switch to the tip of
  $branch only to immediately reset back to $from, smudging work tree
  files unnecessarily.  This has been optimized.

* Object creation codepath in "git-svn" has been optimized by enhancing
  plumbing commands git-cat-file and git-hash-object.

(usability, bells and whistles)

* "git add -p" (and the "patch" subcommand of "git add -i") can choose to
  apply (or not apply) mode changes independently from contents changes.

* "git bisect help" gives longer and more helpful usage information.

* "git bisect" does not use a special branch "bisect" anymore; instead, it
  does its work on a detached HEAD.

* "git branch" (and "git checkout -b") can be told to set up
  branch.<name>.rebase automatically, so that later you can say "git pull"
  and magically cause "git pull --rebase" to happen.

* "git branch --merged" and "git branch --no-merged" can be used to list
  branches that have already been merged (or not yet merged) to the
  current branch.

* "git cherry-pick" and "git revert" can add a sign-off.

* "git commit" mentions the author identity when you are committing
  somebody else's changes.

* "git diff/log --dirstat" output is consistent between binary and textual
  changes.

* "git filter-branch" rewrites signed tags by demoting them to annotated.

* "git format-patch --no-binary" can produce a patch that lack binary
  changes (i.e. cannot be used to propagate the whole changes) meant only
  for reviewing.

* "git init --bare" is a synonym for "git --bare init" now.

* "git gc --auto" honors a new pre-auto-gc hook to temporarily disable it.

* "git log --pretty=tformat:<custom format>" gives a LF after each entry,
  instead of giving a LF between each pair of entries which is how
  "git log --pretty=format:<custom format>" works.

* "git log" and friends learned the "--graph" option to show the ancestry
  graph at the left margin of the output.

* "git log" and friends can be told to use date format that is different
  from the default via 'log.date' configuration variable.

* "git send-email" now can send out messages outside a git repository.

* "git send-email --compose" was made aware of rfc2047 quoting.

* "git status" can optionally include output from "git submodule
  summary".

* "git svn" learned --add-author-from option to propagate the authorship
  by munging the commit log message.

* new object creation and looking up in "git svn" has been optimized.

* "gitweb" can read from a system-wide configuration file.

(internal)

* "git unpack-objects" and "git receive-pack" is now more strict about
  detecting breakage in the objects they receive over the wire.


Fixes since v1.5.5
------------------

All of the fixes in v1.5.5 maintenance series are included in
this release, unless otherwise noted.

And there are too numerous small fixes to otherwise note here ;-)


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

Changes since v1.5.5 are as follows:

A Large Angry SCM (1):
      git-repack: re-enable parsing of -n command line option

Adam Roben (11):
      Add tests for git cat-file
      git-cat-file: Small refactor of cmd_cat_file
      git-cat-file: Make option parsing a little more flexible
      git-cat-file: Add --batch-check option
      git-cat-file: Add --batch option
      Move git-hash-object tests from t5303 to t1007
      Add more tests for git hash-object
      git-hash-object: Add --stdin-paths option
      Git.pm: Add command_bidi_pipe and command_close_bidi_pipe
      Git.pm: Add hash_and_insert_object and cat_blob
      git-svn: Speed up fetch

Adam Simpkins (15):
      Remove dead code: show_log() sep argument and diff_options.msg_sep
      log: print log entry terminator even if the message is empty
      revision API: split parent rewriting and parent printing options
      Add history graph API
      log and rev-list: add --graph option
      graph API: eliminate unnecessary indentation
      graph API: fix graph mis-alignment after uninteresting commits
      graph API: don't print branch lines for uninteresting merge parents
      log --graph --left-right: show left/right information in place of '*'
      Fix output of "git log --graph --boundary"
      get_revision(): honor the topo_order flag for boundary commits
      graph API: improve display of merge commits
      graph API: avoid printing unnecessary padding before some octopus merges
      graph API: fix "git log --graph --first-parent"
      git log --graph: print '*' for all commits, including merges

Alberto Bertogli (1):
      builtin-apply: Show a more descriptive error on failure when opening a patch

Alejandro Mery (1):
      git-am: head -1 is obsolete and doesn't work on some new systems

Alex Riesen (13):
      Use "=" instead of "==" in condition as it is more portable
      Fix use after free() in builtin-fetch
      Use the modern syntax of git-diff-files in t2002-checkout-cache-u.sh
      Improve reporting of errors in config file routines
      Make the exit code of add_file_to_index actually useful
      Extend interface of add_files_to_cache to allow ignore indexing errors
      Add --ignore-errors to git-add to allow it to skip files with read errors
      Add a test for git-add --ignore-errors
      Add a config option to ignore errors for git-add
      Ensure that a test is run in the trash directory
      Fix t6031 on filesystems without working exec bit
      Fix t3701 if core.filemode disabled
      Fix t5516 on cygwin: it does not like double slashes at the beginning of a path

Anders Waldenborg (1):
      gitweb: Convert string to internal form before chopping in chop_str

Andy Parkins (1):
      post-receive-email: fix accidental removal of a trailing space in signature line

Ariel Badichi (2):
      copy.c: copy_fd - correctly report write errors
      archive.c: format_subst - fixed bogus argument to memchr

Ask Bjørn Hansen (2):
      gitweb setup instruction: rewrite HEAD and root as well
      send-email: Allow the envelope sender to be set via configuration

Avery Pennarun (5):
      git-svn: add documentation for --use-log-author option.
      git-svn: Add --add-author-from option.
      git-svn: add documentation for --add-author-from option.
      git-svn: don't append extra newlines at the end of commit messages.
      git-svn: test that extra blank lines aren't inserted in commit messages.

Bart Trojanowski (1):
      make git-status use a pager

Björn Steinbrink (2):
      Fix section about backdating tags in the git-tag docs
      name-rev: Fix segmentation fault when using --all

Boyd Lynn Gerber (2):
      progress.c: avoid use of dynamic-sized array
      Port to 12 other Platforms.

Brandon Casey (8):
      filter-branch.sh: support nearly proper tag name filtering
      git-clone.txt: Adjust note to --shared for new pruning behavior of git-gc
      compat/fopen.c: avoid clobbering the system defined fopen macro
      repack: modify behavior of -A option to leave unreferenced objects unpacked
      git-gc: always use -A when manually repacking
      builtin-gc.c: deprecate --prune, it now really has no effect
      builtin-clone.c: Need to closedir() in copy_or_link_directory()
      t/Makefile: "trash" directory was renamed recently

Bryan Donlan (10):
      git-rebase.sh: Fix --merge --abort failures when path contains whitespace
      config.c: Escape backslashes in section names properly
      git-send-email.perl: Handle shell metacharacters in $EDITOR properly
      test-lib.sh: Add a test_set_editor function to safely set $VISUAL
      Use test_set_editor in t9001-send-email.sh
      test-lib.sh: Fix some missing path quoting
      lib-git-svn.sh: Fix quoting issues with paths containing shell metacharacters
      Don't use the 'export NAME=value' in the test scripts.
      Fix tests breaking when checkout path contains shell metacharacters
      Rename the test trash directory to contain spaces.

Caio Marcelo de Oliveira Filho (1):
      git-format-patch: add --no-binary to omit binary changes in the patch.

Carlos Rica (2):
      Fix documentation syntax of optional arguments in short options.
      core-tutorial.txt: Fix showing the current behaviour.

Chris Frey (2):
      Documentation/git-prune.txt: document unpacked logic
      Documentation/git-repack.txt: document new -A behaviour

Chris Parsons (1):
      Updated status to show 'Not currently on any branch' in red

Chris Ridd (1):
      Improve sed portability

Christian Couder (32):
      bisect: add "git bisect help" subcommand to get a long usage string
      bisect: fix bad rev checking in "git bisect good"
      bisect: report bad rev better
      bisect: squelch "fatal: ref HEAD not a symref" misleading message
      git-bisect: make "start", "good" and "skip" succeed or fail atomically
      help: use man viewer path from "man.<tool>.path" config var
      documentation: help: add "man.<tool>.path" config variable
      help: use "man.<tool>.cmd" as custom man viewer command
      documentation: help: add info about "man.<tool>.cmd" config var
      documentation: web--browse: add a note about konqueror
      rev-parse: teach "--verify" to be quiet when using "-q" or "--quiet"
      rev-parse: fix --verify to error out when passed junk after a good rev
      Documentation: hooks: fix missing verb in pre-applypatch description
      Documentation: rename "hooks.txt" to "githooks.txt" and make it a man page
      Documentation: improve "add", "pull" and "format-patch" examples
      Documentation: bisect: add a few "git bisect run" examples
      bisect: print an error message when "git rev-list --bisect-vars" fails
      rev-parse: add test script for "--verify"
      rev-parse: fix using "--default" with "--verify"
      rev-parse --verify: do not output anything on error
      Documentation: rev-parse: add a few "--verify" and "--default" examples
      bisect: add test cases to check that "git bisect start" is atomic
      bisect: fix left over "BISECT_START" file when starting with junk rev
      bisect: trap critical errors in "bisect_start"
      bisect: use a detached HEAD to bisect
      Documentation: convert tutorials to man pages
      bisect: use "$GIT_DIR/BISECT_START" to check if we are bisecting
      Documentation: convert "glossary" and "core-tutorial" to man pages
      documentation: convert "diffcore" and "repository-layout" to man pages
      documentation: move git(7) to git(1)
      documentation: bisect: remove bits talking about a bisection branch
      Documentation: RelNotes-1.5.6: talk about renamed HTML files

Christian Engwer (1):
      git-svn fails in prop_walk if $self->{path} is not empty

Christian Stimming (3):
      git-gui: Update German translation
      gitk: Update German translation
      gitk: German translation again updated

Clemens Buchacher (2):
      Reset the signal being handled
      http-push: remove remote locks on exit signals

Clifford Caoile (2):
      Docs gitk: Explicitly mention the files that gitk uses (~/.gitk)
      git.el: Set process-environment instead of invoking env

Dan McGee (4):
      completion: allow 'git remote' subcommand completion
      completion: remove use of dashed git commands
      Allow cherry-pick (and revert) to add signoff line
      Remove 'header' from --signoff option description

Daniel Barkalow (14):
      Fix config key miscount in url.*.insteadOf
      Make walker.fetch_ref() take a struct ref.
      Make ls-remote http://... list HEAD, like for git://...
      Mark the list of refs to fetch as const
      Add a lockfile function to append to a file
      Add a library function to add an alternate to the alternates file
      Have a constant extern refspec for "--tags"
      Allow for having for_each_ref() list extra refs
      Add a function to set a non-default work tree
      Provide API access to init_db()
      Build in clone
      clone: fall back to copying if hardlinking fails
      Test that --reference actually suppresses fetching referenced objects
      Use nonrelative paths instead of absolute paths for cloned repositories

Dirk Suesserott (2):
      Documentation/git-request-pull: Fixed a typo ("send" -> "end")
      Documentation/git-mailsplit: Enhanced description of -o option

Dmitry Potapov (2):
      git-gc --prune is deprecated
      git-init: autodetect core.ignorecase

Dmitry V. Levin (1):
      builtin-fetch.c (store_updated_refs): Honor update_local_ref() return value

Dustin Sallings (3):
      Documentation/config.txt: Mention branch.<name>.rebase applies to "git pull"
      Allow tracking branches to set up rebase by default.
      Allow tracking branches to set up rebase by default.

Eric Wong (1):
      git-svn: fix cloning of HTTP URLs with '+' in their path

Flavio Poletti (1):
      git-instaweb: improve auto-discovery of httpd and call conventions.

Florian Ragwitz (1):
      filter-branch: Documentation fix.

Frank Lichtenheld (4):
      var: Don't require to be in a git repository.
      Git.pm: Don't require a repository instance for config
      Git.pm: Don't require repository instance for ident
      send-email: Don't require to be called in a repository

Fred Maranhão (1):
      fix typo in tutorial

Geoffrey Irving (1):
      doc: adding gitman.info and *.texi to .gitignore

Gerrit Pape (7):
      gitweb: fallback to system-wide config file if default config does not exist
      gitweb: fallback to system-wide config file (fixup)
      diff-options.txt: document the new "--dirstat" option
      gitk: Makefile/install: force permissions when installing files and dirs
      git-bisect.sh: don't accidentally override existing branch "bisect"
      Documentation/git-bundle.txt: fix synopsis
      commit --interactive: properly update the index before commiting

Govind Salinas (1):
      pretty.c: add %x00 format specifier.

Gustaf Hendeby (6):
      git-svn: Make create-ignore use git add -f
      Documentation: Add create-ignore to git svn manual
      Documentation/config.txt: Add git-gui options
      Documentation: Add missing git svn commands
      Documentation: Fix skipped section level
      Make git add -n and git -u -n output consistent

Heikki Orsila (8):
      Make core.sharedRepository more generic
      Document functions xmemdupz(), xread() and xwrite()
      Die for an early EOF in a file reading loop
      Make read_in_full() and write_in_full() consistent with xread() and xwrite()
      Cleanup xread() loops to use read_in_full()
      Add missing "short" alternative to --date in rev-list-options.txt
      Add log.date config variable
      Remove redundant code, eliminate one static variable

Horst H. von Brand (1):
      Fix recipient santitization

Ian Hilt (1):
      Documentation/git-describe.txt: make description more readable

Imran M Yousuf (1):
      Use '-f' option to point to the .gitmodules file

Jakub Narebski (7):
      gitweb: Fix 'history' view for deleted files with history
      gitweb: Use feed link according to current view
      gitweb: Remove gitweb/test/ directory
      gitweb: Fix "next" link on bottom of page
      gitweb: Add charset info to "raw" output of 'text/plain' blobs
      gitweb: Make it work with $GIT containing spaces
      Use 'trash directory' thoroughly in t/test-lib.sh

Jamis Buck (1):
      git-reset: honor -q and do not show progress message

Jeff King (30):
      add--interactive: ignore mode change in 'p'atch command
      add--interactive: allow user to choose mode update
      git-fetch: fix status output when not storing tracking ref
      git-fetch: always show status of non-tracking-ref fetches
      git-remote: show all remotes with "git remote show"
      Don't force imap.host to be set when imap.tunnel is set
      t5516: remove ambiguity test (1)
      doc/git-gc: add a note about what is collected
      push: allow unqualified dest refspecs to DWIM
      remote: create fetch config lines with '+'
      fix reflog approxidate parsing bug
      cvsimport: always pass user data to "system" as a list
      Documentation: point git-prune users to git-gc
      add merge.renamelimit config option
      bump rename limit defaults
      diff: make "too many files" rename warning optional
      checkout: don't rfc2047-encode oneline on detached HEAD
      doc: clarify definition of "update" for git-add -u
      fix bsd shell negation
      t5000: tar portability fix
      clone: bsd shell portability fix
      filter-branch: fix variable export logic
      doc/git-daemon: s/uploadarchive/uploadarch/
      git-am: fix typo in usage message
      send-email: specify content-type of --compose body
      send-email: rfc2047-quote subject lines with non-ascii characters
      clone: make sure we support the transport type
      Fix "git clone http://$URL" to check out the worktree when asked
      document --pretty=tformat: option
      clean up error conventions of remote.c:match_explicit

Johan Herland (5):
      Add a test for another combination of --reference
      Add test for cloning with "--reference" repo being a subset of source repo
      cpio is no longer used by git-clone
      Consistency: Use "libcurl" instead of "cURL library" and "curl"
      The "curl" executable is no longer required

Johannes Schindelin (12):
      Provide git_config with a callback-data parameter
      builtin-clone: fix initial checkout
      cvsexportcommit: chomp only removes trailing whitespace
      diff options: Introduce --ignore-submodules
      Teach update-index about --ignore-submodules
      Ignore dirty submodule states during rebase and stash
      cvsexportcommit: introduce -W for shared working trees (between Git and CVS)
      submodule update: add convenience option --init
      pull --rebase: exit early when the working directory is dirty
      mailsplit and mailinfo: gracefully handle NUL characters
      hg-to-git: add --verbose option
      merge-recursive: respect core.autocrlf when writing out the result

Johannes Sixt (11):
      Document option --only of git commit
      builtin-commit.c: Remove a redundant assignment.
      git-gui: Report less precise object estimates for database compression
      compat-util: avoid macro redefinition warning
      wt-status.h: declare global variables as extern
      rev-parse --symbolic-full-name: don't print '^' if SHA1 is not a ref
      t5700-clone-reference: Quote $U
      Revert "filter-branch: subdirectory filter needs --full-history"
      rebase --interactive: Compute upstream SHA1 before switching branches
      make_nonrelative_path: Use is_absolute_path()
      Remove exec bit from builtin-fast-export.c

John J. Franey (1):
      Clarify description of <repository> argument to pull/fetch for naming remotes.

Jon Loeliger (4):
      Clarify and fix English in "git-rm" documentation
      Add otherwise missing --strict option to unpack-objects summary.
      git-filter-branch: Clarify file removal example.
      git-show.txt: Not very stubby these days.

Jonas Fonseca (1):
      git-remote: reject adding remotes with invalid names

Junio C Hamano (80):
      Optimize rename detection for a huge diff
      t5300: add test for "unpack-objects --strict"
      unpack-objects: fix --strict handling
      rebase [--onto O] A B: omit needless checkout
      sha1-lookup: more memory efficient search in sorted list of SHA-1
      diff: make --dirstat binary-file safe
      sha1-lookup: make selection of 'middle' less aggressive
      log: teach "terminator" vs "separator" mode to "--pretty=format"
      Document -w option to shortlog
      Documentation/git-submodule: typofix
      git_config_bool_or_int()
      t7401: squelch garbage output
      write_index(): optimize ce_smudge_racily_clean_entry() calls with CE_UPTODATE
      diff-files: mark an index entry we know is up-to-date as such
      Fix git_config_bool_or_int
      rebase: do not munge commit log message
      git-am: minor cleanup
      am: POSIX portability fix
      GIT 1.5.5.1
      First batch of post 1.5.5 updates
      write-tree: properly detect failure to write tree objects
      clone: detect and fail on excess parameters
      fetch-pack: brown paper bag fix
      diff: a submodule not checked out is not modified
      diff-lib.c: rename check_work_tree_entity()
      is_racy_timestamp(): do not check timestamp for gitlinks
      git-svn: add test for --add-author-from and --use-log-author
      builtin-apply: typofix
      builtin-apply: accept patch to an empty file
      builtin-apply: do not declare patch is creation when we do not know it
      unpack-trees: allow Porcelain to give different error messages
      "git-add -n -u" should not add but just report
      tests: do not use implicit "git diff --no-index"
      diff-files: do not play --no-index games
      "git diff": do not ignore index without --no-index
      mailinfo: apply the same fix not to lose NULs in BASE64 and QP codepaths
      mailsplit: minor clean-up in read_line_with_nul()
      Update draft release notes for 1.5.6
      log --graph: do not accept log --graphbogus
      log --pretty: do not accept bogus "--prettyshort"
      Release Notes for 1.5.5.2
      Documentation/git.txt: link to 1.5.5.2 documentation.
      Makefile: fix dependency on wt-status.h
      show-branch --current: do not barf on detached HEAD
      git-diff: allow  --no-index semantics a bit more
      git diff --no-index: default to page like other diff frontends
      GIT 1.5.5.3
      t5100: Avoid filename "nul"
      Git::cat_blob: allow using an empty blob to fix git-svn breakage
      fix sha1_pack_index_name()
      Manual subsection to refer to other pages is SEE ALSO
      Documentation: git-cherry uses git-patch-id
      "git checkout -- paths..." should error out when paths cannot be written
      checkout: make reset_clean_to_new() not die by itself
      checkout: consolidate reset_{to_new,clean_to_new}()
      unpack_trees(): allow callers to differentiate worktree errors from merge errors
      checkout: "best effort" checkout
      commit: drop duplicated parents
      GIT v1.5.6-rc1
      t7502: do not globally unset GIT_COMMITTER_* environment variables
      t7502: tighten loosely written test sequence
      Documentation: git-log cannot use rev-list specific options
      t7502: honor SHELL_PATH
      GIT 1.5.5.4
      GIT 1.5.6-rc2
      http-push.c: remove duplicated code
      "remote prune": be quiet when there is nothing to prune
      Documentation/git-pull.txt: Use more standard [NOTE] markup
      Documentation: exclude @pxref{[REMOTES]} from texinfo intermediate output
      user-manual: describe how higher stages are set during a merge
      t4126: fix test that happened to work due to timing
      sha1_file.c: dead code removal
      GIT 1.5.6-rc3
      Makefile: update check-docs target
      Update RPM spec to drop curl executable requirement
      diff.c: fix emit_line() again not to add extra line
      create_tempfile: make sure that leading directories can be accessible by peers
      sha1_file.c: simplify parse_pack_index()
      builtin-rerere: fix a small leak
      GIT 1.5.6

Jörg Sommer (1):
      post-merge: Add it's not executed if merge failed.

Karl Hasselström (3):
      Add some tests for git update-ref -d
      Fix path duplication in git svn commit-diff
      Revert "git.el: Set process-environment instead of invoking env"

Kevin Ballard (1):
      Documentation/git-filter-branch.txt: Fix description of --commit-filter

Krzysztof Kowalczyk (1):
      alloc_ref_from_str(): factor out a common pattern of alloc_ref from string

Lars Hjemli (8):
      Add platform-independent .git "symlink"
      Teach resolve_gitlink_ref() about the .git file
      Teach git-submodule.sh about the .git file
      Teach GIT-VERSION-GEN about the .git file
      git-branch: add support for --merged and --no-merged
      git-branch.txt: compare --contains, --merged and --no-merged
      Add tests for `branch --[no-]merged`
      revision.c: really honor --first-parent

Lea Wiemann (13):
      gitweb: only display "next" links in logs if there is a next page
      t/test-lib.sh: resolve symlinks in working directory, for pathname comparisons
      Git.pm: fix documentation of hash_object
      glossary: improve a few links
      Git.pm: fix return value of config method
      cat-file --batch: flush stdout also when objects are missing
      git-for-each-ref.txt: minor improvements
      t1006-cat-file.sh: typo
      cat-file --batch / --batch-check: do not exit if hashes are missing
      Documentation/git-cat-file.txt: add missing line break
      t/.gitattributes: only ignore whitespace errors in test files
      gitweb: quote commands properly when calling the shell
      gitweb: remove unused parse_ref method

Linus Torvalds (22):
      Make unpack_trees_options bit flags actual bitfields
      Move name hashing functions into a file of its own
      Make "index_name_exists()" return the cache_entry it found
      Make hash_name_lookup able to do case-independent lookups
      Add 'core.ignorecase' option
      Make branch merging aware of underlying case-insensitive filsystems
      Make unpack-tree update removed files before any updated files
      When adding files to the index, add support for case-independent matches
      Make git-add behave more sensibly in a case-insensitive environment
      Ignore leading empty lines while summarizing merges
      git-am: cope better with an empty Subject: line
      Optimize match_pathspec() to avoid fnmatch()
      fetch-pack: do not stop traversing an already parsed commit
      Avoid some unnecessary lstat() calls
      Optimize symlink/directory detection
      Make pack creation always fsync() the result
      Remove now unnecessary 'sync()' calls
      Consolidate SHA1 object file close
      Avoid cross-directory renames and linking on object creation
      Make loose object file reading more careful
      Simplify and rename find_sha1_file()
      write_loose_object: don't bother trying to read an old object

Liu Yubao (1):
      Documentation on --git-dir and --work-tree

Luciano Rocha (1):
      git-init: accept --bare option

Marcel Koeppen (2):
      Replace in-place sed in t7502-commit
      Fix prepare-commit-msg hook and replace in-place sed

Marius Storm-Olsen (3):
      Clearify the documentation for core.ignoreStat
      Add shortcut in refresh_cache_ent() for marked entries.
      Add testcase for merging in a CRLF repo

Mark Hills (1):
      Be more careful with objects directory permissions on clone

Mark Levedahl (2):
      git-submodule - possibly use branch name to describe a module
      git-submodule - Fix errors regarding resolve_relative_url

Martin Koegler (3):
      unpack-objects: prevent writing of inconsistent objects
      receive-pack: allow using --strict mode for unpacking objects
      t5300: add test for "index-pack --strict"

Matt Graham (1):
      Linked glossary from cvs-migration page

Matthew Ogilvie (4):
      gitattributes: Fix subdirectory attributes specified from root directory
      git-cvsserver: add mechanism for managing working tree and current directory
      implement gitcvs.usecrlfattr
      git-cvsserver: add ability to guess -kb from contents

Matthias Kestenholz (1):
      Use color.ui variable in scripts too

Matthieu Moy (2):
      Document that WebDAV doesn't need git on the server, and works over SSL
      git-svn: detect and fail gracefully when dcommitting to a void

Michael Dressel (1):
      describe: match pattern for lightweight tags too

Michael Weber (1):
      svn-git: Use binmode for reading/writing binary rev maps

Michele Ballabio (6):
      revision.c: make --date-order overriddable
      gitk: Disable "Reset %s branch to here" when on a detached head
      gitk: Move es.po where it belongs
      builtin-cat-file.c: use parse_options()
      change quoting in test t1006-cat-file.sh
      Documentation: fix graph in git-rev-parse.txt

Mikael Magnusson (1):
      Typo in RelNotes.

Mike Hommey (1):
      Don't allocate too much memory in quote_ref_url

Mike Ralphson (1):
      Makefile: update the default build options for AIX

Miklos Vajna (19):
      git-gc --auto: add pre-auto-gc hook
      Documentation/hooks: add pre-auto-gc hook
      contrib/hooks: add an example pre-auto-gc hook
      diff options documentation: refer to --diff-filter in --name-status
      git checkout: add -t alias for --track
      git-format-patch: add a new format.cc configuration variable
      git-send-email: add a new sendemail.cc configuration variable
      Add tests for sendemail.cc configuration variable
      INSTALL: add a note about GNU interactive tools has been renamed
      git-fast-import: rename cmd_*() functions to parse_*()
      git-merge: exclude unnecessary options from OPTIONS_SPEC
      CodingGuidelines: Add a note to avoid assignments inside if()
      Revision walking documentation: document most important functions
      Strbuf documentation: document most functions
      Remove unused code in parse_commit_buffer()
      git-rebase -i: mention the short command aliases in the todo list
      git-read-tree: document -v option.
      run-command documentation: fix "memset()" parameter
      path-list documentation: document all functions and data structures

Nicolas Pitre (10):
      pack-objects: small cleanup
      pack-objects: remove some double negative logic
      pack-objects: simplify the condition associated with --all-progress
      pack-objects: clean up write_object() a bit
      pack-objects: move compression code in a separate function
      pack-objects: allow for early delta deflating
      pack-objects: fix early eviction for max depth delta objects
      add a force_object_loose() function
      let pack-objects do the writing of unreachable objects as loose objects
      make verify-pack a bit more useful with bad packs

Olivier Marin (5):
      remote show: fix the -n option
      builtin-remote: split show_or_prune() in two separate functions
      remote prune: print the list of pruned branches
      remote show: list tracked remote branches with -n
      Fix approxidate("never") to always return 0

Paolo Bonzini (3):
      Add a remote.*.mirror configuration option
      add special "matching refs" refspec
      rollback lock files on more signals than just SIGINT

Paul Mackerras (41):
      gitk: Use git log without --topo-order and reorganize the commits ourselves
      gitk: Fix bug in assigning row numbers to arcs
      gitk: Fix bug in parsing multiple revision arguments
      gitk: Compute row numbers and order tokens lazily
      gitk: Fix a couple of bugs
      gitk: Fix more bugs resulting in Tcl "no such element in array" errors
      gitk: More bug fixes and cleanups
      gitk: Implement date mode in the new framework
      gitk: Fix another collection of bugs
      gitk: Don't try to show local changes from a head that isn't shown
      gitk: Keep the same commits visible as other commits come in
      gitk: Fix some corner cases in the targetid/targetrow stuff
      gitk: Fix a couple of bugs in the find function
      gitk: Fix potential bug with fake commit IDs in renumbervarc
      gitk: Index [fnvr]highlights by id rather than row
      gitk: Fix handling of flag arguments
      gitk: Fix a bug in make_disporder
      gitk: Select head of current branch by default
      gitk: Select something appropriate on cherry-pick, branch reset and checkout
      gitk: Fix bug where editing an existing view would cause an infinite loop
      gitk: Fix bug causing Tcl error when no commits are selected
      gitk: Fix cherry-picking to insert a real row not a fake row
      gitk: Cope better with getting commits that we have already seen
      gitk: Fix bug where arcs could get lost
      gitk: Handle updating with path limiting better
      gitk: Fix problems with target row stuff
      gitk: Don't filter view arguments through git rev-parse
      gitk: Correct a few strings and comments to say "git log"
      gitk: Fix some corner cases in computing vrowmod and displayorder
      gitk: Avoid a crash in selectline if commitinfo($id) isn't set
      gitk: Fix problem with target row not being in scroll region
      gitk: Reorganize processing of arguments for git log
      gitk: Fix handling of tree file list with special chars in names
      gitk: Make updates go faster
      gitk: Synchronize highlighting in file view for 'f' and 'b' commands
      gitk: Show current row number and total number of rows
      gitk: Add a progress bar for checking out a head
      gitk: Fix "wrong # coordinates" error on reload
      gitk: Fix bug where current row number display stops working
      gitk: Fix bug introduced by "gitk: Fix "wrong # coordinates" error on reload"
      gitk: Handle detached heads better

Paul Oliver (1):
      Make git-cvsimport remove ['s from tags, as bad_ref_char doesn't allow them.

Pedro Melo (1):
      Force the medium pretty format on calls to git log

Peter Karlsson (1):
      gitk: Initial Swedish translation.

Philippe Bruhat (BooK) (1):
      git-cvsimport: do not fail when CVSROOT is /

Pierre Habouzit (1):
      Make git reflog expire honour core.sharedRepository.

Pieter de Bie (2):
      builtin-fast-export: Only output a single parent per line
      git-send-email: allow whitespace in addressee list

Ping Yin (6):
      git-submodule: Avoid 'fatal: cannot describe' message
      git-submodule summary: --for-status option
      builtin-status: submodule summary support
      builtin-status: Add tests for submodule summary
      t4027: test diff for submodule with empty directory
      Add t7506 to test submodule related functions for git-status

Rafael Garcia-Suarez (1):
      Spelling fixes in the gitweb documentation

René Scharfe (2):
      git-archive: ignore prefix when checking file attribute
      Ignore .gitattributes in bare repositories

Richard Quirk (2):
      bash: Add completion for gitk --merge
      Documentation gitk: Describe what --merge does

SZEDER Gábor (8):
      doc: moved merge.* config variables into separate merge-config.txt
      merge, pull: introduce '--(no-)stat' option
      add 'merge.stat' config variable
      fmt-merge-msg: add '--(no-)log' options and 'merge.log' config variable
      merge, pull: add '--(no-)log' command line option
      git add: add long equivalents of '-u' and '-f' options
      completion: add more 'git add' options
      diff: reset color before printing newline

Sam Vilain (1):
      Amend git-push refspec documentation

Santi Béjar (3):
      Preparation to call determine_author_info from prepare_to_commit
      commit: Show author if different from committer
      commit: Show committer if automatic

Santiago Gala (1):
      gitk: Spanish translation of gitk

Scott Collins (1):
      Clarify documentation of git-cvsserver, particularly in relation to git-shell

Sebastian Schuberth (1):
      mergetool: Make ECMerge use the settings as specified by the user in the GUI

Seth Falcon (1):
      Add a --dry-run option to git-svn rebase

Shawn Bohrer (2):
      git clean: Don't automatically remove directories when run within subdirectory
      git clean: Add test to verify directories aren't removed with a prefix

Shawn O. Pearce (13):
      git-gui: Don't use '$$cr master' with aspell earlier than 0.60
      git-gui: Setup branch.remote,merge for shorthand git-pull
      git-gui: Delete branches with 'git branch -D' to clear config
      git-gui: Add a --trace command line option
      git-gui: Handle workdir detection when CYGWIN=nowinsymlinks
      Clarify repack -n documentation
      Don't diff empty tree on branch creation in paranoid update hook
      Don't load missing ACL files in paranoid update hook
      Ignore no-op changes in paranoid update hook
      Remove unused remote_prefix member in builtin-remote
      Make "git-remote prune" delete refs according to fetch specs
      Make "git-remote rm" delete refs acccording to fetch specs
      fast-export: Correctly generate initial commits with no parents

Sitaram Chamarty (1):
      builtin-commit.c: add -u as short name for --untracked-files

Steffen Prohaska (4):
      t0050: Test autodetect core.ignorecase
      t0050: Set core.ignorecase case to activate case insensitivity
      t0050: Add test for case insensitive add
      t0050: Fix merge test on case sensitive file systems

Stephan Beyer (9):
      builtin-apply.c: use git_config_string() to get apply_default_whitespace
      Add test cases for git-am
      Merge t4150-am-subdir.sh and t4151-am.sh into t4150-am.sh
      git-commit.txt: Correct option alternatives
      git-commit.txt: Add missing long/short options
      Docs: Use "-l::\n--long\n" format in OPTIONS sections
      Docs: add some long/short options
      git-describe.txt: document --always
      git-name-rev.txt: document --no-undefined and --always

Stephen R. van den Berg (2):
      Simplify and fix --first-parent implementation
      git-svn: Same default as cvsimport when using --use-log-author

Steven Grimm (1):
      Add svn-compatible "blame" output format to git-svn

Teemu Likonen (3):
      bash: Add completion for git diff --base --ours --theirs
      Documentation/git-web--browse.txt: fix small typo
      Print info about "git help COMMAND" on git's main usage pages

Thomas Arcila (1):
      gitk: Allow users to view diffs in external diff viewer

Thomas Guyot-Sionnest (1):
      git-svn bug with blank commits and author file

Trent Piepho (1):
      cvsexportcommit: Create config option for CVS dir

Twiinz (1):
      git-gui: Vertically align textboxes with labels

martin f. krafft (2):
      Escape project name in regexp
      Escape project names before creating pathinfo URLs

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.5.6 done on Jun 18th this year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.5.4.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.  Although my
   repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
   I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
   can work from the same codebase.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

'next' will be rewound shortly

[Junio C Hamano]

Following the new tradition we began a few releases ago, I'll rewind the
tip of 'next' shortly.  Two topics will be kicked back to 'pu' while we
are at it (jc/send-pack-tell-me-more and js/rebase-i-sequencer).

This is just an advance warning.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.6

[Steffen Prohaska]

On Jun 19, 2008, at 1:24 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The latest feature release GIT 1.5.6 is available at the usual
> places:


The msysgit Windows installer is available at

    http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/downloads

	Steffen

[ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.6.1

[Junio C Hamano]

The latest maintenance release GIT 1.5.6.1 is available at the
usual places:

  http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/

  git-1.5.6.1.tar.{gz,bz2}			(tarball)
  git-htmldocs-1.5.6.1.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)
  git-manpages-1.5.6.1.tar.{gz,bz2}		(preformatted docs)
  RPMS/$arch/git-*-1.5.6.1-1.$arch.rpm	(RPM)

GIT v1.5.6.1 Release Notes
==========================

Fixes since v1.5.6
------------------

* Last minute change broke loose object creation on AIX.

* (performance fix) We used to make $GIT_DIR absolute path early in the
  programs but keeping it relative to the current directory internally
  gives 1-3 per-cent performance boost.

* bash completion knows the new --graph option to git-log family.


* git-diff -c/--cc showed unnecessary "deletion" lines at the context
  boundary.

* git-for-each-ref ignored %(object) and %(type) requests for tag
  objects.

* git-merge usage had a typo.

* Rebuilding of git-svn metainfo database did not take rewriteRoot
  option into account.

* Running "git-rebase --continue/--skip/--abort" before starting a
  rebase gave nonsense error messages.

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

Changes since v1.5.6 are as follows:

Brandon Casey (2):
      git-merge.sh: fix typo in usage message: sucesses --> succeeds
      t7502-commit.sh: test_must_fail doesn't work with inline environment variables

Dan McGee (1):
      completion: add --graph to log command completion

Dmitry Potapov (1):
      fix update-hook-example to work with packed tag references

Jan Krüger (2):
      Documentation: fix formatting in git-svn
      git-svn: make rebuild respect rewriteRoot option

Jeff King (2):
      for-each-ref: implement missing tag values
      clone: create intermediate directories of destination repo

Junio C Hamano (2):
      diff -c/--cc: do not include uninteresting deletion before leading context
      GIT 1.5.6.1

Linus Torvalds (1):
      Make git_dir a path relative to work_tree in setup_work_tree()

Michele Ballabio (1):
      parse-options.c: fix documentation syntax of optional arguments

Patrick Higgins (1):
      Workaround for AIX mkstemp()

Stephan Beyer (4):
      git-rebase.sh: Add check if rebase is in progress
      api-builtin.txt: update and fix typo
      api-parse-options.txt: Introduce documentation for parse options API
      Extend parse-options test suite

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Stephan Beyer]

Hi Junio,

> Following the new tradition we began a few releases ago, I'll rewind the
> tip of 'next' shortly.  Two topics will be kicked back to 'pu' while we
> are at it (jc/send-pack-tell-me-more and js/rebase-i-sequencer).

I wonder why the bugfix commit

	aec7e9cd	Don't append default merge message to -m message

has disappeared or why/if this belongs to js/rebase-i-sequencer.

I noticed this because a test case of sequencer failed during rebasing
to pure "master"/"next" without js/rebase-i-sequencer.


I also have a question:
my development branch for the sequencer prototype is based on next,
then:
	* Merge js/rebase-i-sequencer
	* ... development ...

The only reason that makes js/rebase-i-sequencer important (besides
aec7e9cd which is mentioned above), is for the last patch
("Migrate rebase-i to use sequencer") in the patchset that I want to
send to the list.  (Otherwise a lot of work of Joerg Sommer would be
annotated to me.)
So I wanted to
 1. send a patchset based on "master"/"next" without the rebase-i
    feature extentions of Joerg Sommer, and
 2. resend the last patch (the one about rebase-i) based on "pu",
    where js/rebase-i-sequencer is still merged into.
Is this sane?

(The other variant could be that I send the "Merge js/rebase-i-sequencer"
 commit as a patch to the list, but this sounds insane to me.)

Regards,
  Stephan

-- 
Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Miklos Vajna]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 627 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 06:12:20PM +0200, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:
> I wonder why the bugfix commit
> 
> 	aec7e9cd	Don't append default merge message to -m message
> 
> has disappeared or why/if this belongs to js/rebase-i-sequencer.

I think it its current form that is not a bugfix. The user may want to
prepend a custom message and may want to replace the original message
with a custom one, and I would not consider either of them as "buggy".

Funny enough, I just sent a patch:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/86584/focus=86589

that tests the original behaviour. ;-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Stephan Beyer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1015 bytes --]

Hi,

I just looked how you solved that and wanted to start a discussion but
you've swooped in first, find. ;-)

> I think it its current form that is not a bugfix. The user may want to
> prepend a custom message and may want to replace the original message
> with a custom one, and I would not consider either of them as "buggy".

Well, when I do -m <msg>, I expect that my commit message is exactly
<msg>, and not <msg> with appended stuff.
Of course, it doesn't matter what I expect, but I think what the
documentation says matters.
This is (in "master" and in "builtin-merge" of vmiklos.git):

-m <msg>::
	The commit message to be used for the merge commit (in case
	it is created). The `git-fmt-merge-msg` script can be used
	to give a good default for automated `git-merge` invocations.

So it is not mentioned that a standard message is appended, and thus the
original behavior is somehow "buggy" :)

Regards,
  Stephan

-- 
Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net>, PGP 0x6EDDD207FCC5040F

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

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Miklos Vajna]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 715 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:19:48PM +0200, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:
> -m <msg>::
> 	The commit message to be used for the merge commit (in case
> 	it is created). The `git-fmt-merge-msg` script can be used
> 	to give a good default for automated `git-merge` invocations.
> 
> So it is not mentioned that a standard message is appended, and thus the
> original behavior is somehow "buggy" :)

Ah, OK. Then the code and the documentation differs and that's a bug,
sure.

From git-merge.sh:

# All the rest are the commits being merged; prepare
# the standard merge summary message to be appended to
# the given message.

I did builtin-merge based on git-merge.sh, not the manpage. ;-)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Junio C Hamano]

Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 07:19:48PM +0200, Stephan Beyer <s-beyer@gmx.net> wrote:
>> -m <msg>::
>> 	The commit message to be used for the merge commit (in case
>> 	it is created). The `git-fmt-merge-msg` script can be used
>> 	to give a good default for automated `git-merge` invocations.
>> 
>> So it is not mentioned that a standard message is appended, and thus the
>> original behavior is somehow "buggy" :)
>
> Ah, OK. Then the code and the documentation differs and that's a bug,
> sure.
>
> From git-merge.sh:
>
> # All the rest are the commits being merged; prepare
> # the standard merge summary message to be appended to
> # the given message.
>
> I did builtin-merge based on git-merge.sh, not the manpage. ;-)

Following git tradition, manpage came after the command's behaviour has
been long established.  It will be a behaviour change, and it is open to
debate if the new behaviour is better or if the proposed change of
behaviour hurts existing users.

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Miklos Vajna]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 504 bytes --]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 02:28:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> Following git tradition, manpage came after the command's behaviour has
> been long established.  It will be a behaviour change, and it is open to
> debate if the new behaviour is better or if the proposed change of
> behaviour hurts existing users.

If my opinion counts, I like the current ("prepend") one, and I think
the best would be to add a new option (and/or make it configurable) for
the new ("replace") one.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Stephan Beyer]

Hi,

> <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Following git tradition, manpage came after the command's behaviour has
> > been long established.  It will be a behaviour change, and it is open to
> > debate if the new behaviour is better or if the proposed change of
> > behaviour hurts existing users.
> 
> If my opinion counts, I like the current ("prepend") one, and I think
> the best would be to add a new option (and/or make it configurable) for
> the new ("replace") one.

Well, perhaps I am different, but I sometimes have temporary branches
named like "first-silly-experiment" and I do not expect having a
    Merge branch 'another-silly-experiment' into 'first-silly-experiment'
appended, when I do a
    git merge -m "Merge a lot of useful stuff... blabla" another-silly-experiment.

(btw, I don't *really* name my branches like this..it's just an example.)

Well, I see this from a "sequencer author point of view", where
     merge silly-experiment
will invoke an editor,
     merge --standard silly-experiment
generates some kind of the typical standard (or default) message,
and
     merge --message "Merge blabla" silly-experiment
does the "obvious". (For me this is the obvious since I've never
experienced another behavior. All my merges have been using the
now disappeared commit.)

So I'd vote for a "replace" behavior by default on -m, and an 
"append standard message" option, but if there is *one* person
who relies on the prepend feature, I'd also take the "prepend"
default and would like to vote for an option that does the
replacement.

For the current state of the art, it seems that I have to merge
with whatever message and then do a commit -m "..." --amend.

Regards,
  Stephan Beyer

PS: Currently using webmail. So sorry for any too long lines
or whatever.
-- 
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/wasistshortview.php?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx

Re: 'next' will be rewound shortly

[Junio C Hamano]

Miklos Vajna <vmiklos@frugalware.org> writes:

> On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 02:28:29PM -0700, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Following git tradition, manpage came after the command's behaviour has
>> been long established.  It will be a behaviour change, and it is open to
>> debate if the new behaviour is better or if the proposed change of
>> behaviour hurts existing users.
>
> If my opinion counts, I like the current ("prepend") one,...

Well, I do not think you are alone --- otherwise the original behaviour
would not be such ;-)

In any case, what is more important is that the proposed change is a
change in behaviour and the burden of proof that it does not hurt people's
existing scripts is on the party that wants to change it.

Re: [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.6.1

[Steffen Prohaska]

On Jun 26, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The latest maintenance release GIT 1.5.6.1 is available at the
> usual places:


The msysgit release is available at

    http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/downloads

Besides GIT 1.5.6.1, the installer also brings an updated
msys-1.0.dll that works on Vista.

	Steffen

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.5.6 done on Jun 18th this year.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.6.3.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.  Most of the fruits
   from their porting efforts have been merged to the mainline git.git
   repository in 1.6.0 release.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.6.0 done on Aug 17th 2008.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.6.5.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.  Most of the fruits
   from their porting efforts have been merged to the mainline git.git
   repository in 1.6.0 release.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be.  It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.6.1 done on Dec 24th 2008.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.0.6.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.

Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.  Most of the fruits
   from their porting efforts have been merged to the mainline git.git
   repository in 1.6.0 release.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

I also keep a copy of it at http://members.cox.net/junkio/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant
to contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a
list and it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to
keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's
in/cooking" messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use a post-update hook to
automate a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.6.2 done on Mar 3rd 2009.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.1.3.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
usually have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), nor even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed
changes should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would
delegate fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary
contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general
   implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta
   on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
   proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - Charles Bailey for git-mergetool (and Theodore Ts'o for creating
   the tool).

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, but countless
   others as well.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant
to contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a
list and it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to
keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's
in/cooking" messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use a post-update hook to
automate a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.6.3 done on May 6th 2009.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.2.5.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
usually have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), nor even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed
changes should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would
delegate fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary
contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   Ren辿 Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general
   implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta
   on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
   proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
   Ts'o for creating it in the first place).

 - David Aguilar for git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King,
   Alex Riesen and countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Baz]

Apologies for not quoting the mail I'm replying to, but gmail would
just make the character encoding issues worse.

Junio, Rene Scharfe's name appears incorrectly in the MaintNotes
message - the mail was sent as iso-2022-jp. Previous editions of this
mail (like the one on 4th March) were in utf-8. Maybe a consequence of
the recent change you made to your emacs setup?

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/115746

Just mentioning it in case it causes problems with patch mails down the line.

Cheers,
Baz

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Baz <brian.ewins@gmail.com> writes:

> Junio, Rene Scharfe's name appears incorrectly in the MaintNotes
> message - the mail was sent as iso-2022-jp. Previous editions of this
> mail (like the one on 4th March) were in utf-8. Maybe a consequence of
> the recent change you made to your emacs setup?

Thanks for not just complaining but giving me a clue where to look into.
I very much appreciate it.  Will find time to look into it before sending
any more message with a non-ascii character.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git community.

This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger.kernel.org).  If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.

I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use.  But I am obviously not
perfect.  If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant
to contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a
list and it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to
keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's
in/cooking" messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It
is a good demonstration of how to use a post-update hook to
automate a task.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting.  There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The
last such release was 1.6.4 done on Jul 29th 2009.  You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it.  The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.3.4.
New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however.  Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master".  It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage.  I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics.  The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
usually have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master".  An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.  By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable).  Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), nor even in any
future release.  There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed
changes should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would
delegate fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary
contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   Ren辿 Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general
   implementation issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta
   on gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
   proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
   Ts'o for creating it in the first place).

 - David Aguilar for git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
   to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
   Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King,
   Alex Riesen and countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger.kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.6.6 done on Dec 23rd 2009.  You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.6.5.7.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".  A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however.  Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point.  Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master".  It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage.  I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out.  The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics.  The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general.  By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version).  Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release.  There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
   Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general implementation
   issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
   proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
   Ts'o for creating it in the first place).

 - David Aguilar for git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
   move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
   Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
   countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger.kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.7.0 done on Feb 12, 2010.  You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.6.6.2.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".  A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however.  Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point.  Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master".  It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage.  I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out.  The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics.  The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general.  By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version).  Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release.  There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
   Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general implementation
   issues.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
   proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
   Ts'o for creating it in the first place).

 - David Aguilar for git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
   move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
   Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
   countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger.kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.7.2 done on Jul 21, 2010.  You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.1.1.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".  A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however.  Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point.  Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master".  It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage.  I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out.  The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics.  The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general.  By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version).  Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release.  There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
   Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes Sixt,
   and Sverre Rabbelier on general implementation issues and reviews
   on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
   proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
   Ts'o for creating it in the first place).

 - David Aguilar for git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
   move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
   Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
   countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer...

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger.kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.7.3 done on Sep 18/19, 2010.  You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.2.3.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".  A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however.  Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point.  Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master".  It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage.  I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out.  The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics.  The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general.  By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version).  Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release.  There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
   Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes Sixt,
   and Sverre Rabbelier on general implementation issues and reviews
   on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
   proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
   Ts'o for creating it in the first place).

 - David Aguilar for git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
   move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
   portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
   Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
   countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* IRC and Mailing list

Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger.kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man".  The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state.  The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.

The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.

The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested.  It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".  I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable.  Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.7.4 done on Jan 30, 2011.  You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.3.5.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".  A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however.  Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point.  Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository.  I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.

The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.  Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience".  Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.

The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category.  In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master".  It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage.  I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out.  The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.

After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics.  The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches.  The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general.  By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.

When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next".  I do this with:

        git checkout next
        git merge that-topic-branch

Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version).  Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:

        git checkout master
        git merge that-topic-branch
        git branch -d that-topic-branch

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release.  There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus on general design issues.

 - Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, René
   Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes Sixt,
   Sverre Rabbelier and Thomas Rast on general implementation issues
   and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
   effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A Note from the Maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work".  "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken".  It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to do;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen;

 - what you expected to see; and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".

The "html" and "man" are auto-generated documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has links to
documentation of older releases.

The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script to maintain the two documentation branches are
found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration of how to
use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.5 done on
Apr 24, 2011.  You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is
always more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.4.5.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out.  The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master", or a
topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because fatal
flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
   implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
   effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work".  "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken".  It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to do;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen;

 - what you expected to see; and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/

Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:

        git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".

The "html" and "man" are auto-generated documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has links to
documentation of older releases.

The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script to maintain the two documentation branches are
found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration of how to
use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.6 done on
June 26, 2011.  You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is
always more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.6.1.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out.  The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master", or a
topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because fatal
flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
   implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
   effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work".  "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken".  It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to do;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen;

 - what you expected to see; and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
	https://github.com/git/git
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter two (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".

The "html" and "man" are preformatted documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is visible at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
	http://git-core.googlecode.com/git-history/html/git.html

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it may have
links to documentation of older releases.

The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script that was used to maintain the two documentation
branches are found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.7 done on
Sept 30, 2011. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.6.4.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out.  The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
   implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
   effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Martin von Zweigbergk]

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>  - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
>
>        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I don't seem to be able to fetch from there. Is it still supposed to be there?

Martin

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
>>  - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
>>
>>        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
>
> I don't seem to be able to fetch from there. Is it still supposed to be there?

Unfortunately k.org is _slowly_ coming back to life.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work".  "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken".  It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to do;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen;

 - what you expected to see; and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repository is at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
	https://github.com/git/git
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/

Impatient people might have better luck with the latter two (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).

Their gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".

The "html" and "man" are preformatted documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is visible at:

        http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
	http://git-core.googlecode.com/git-history/html/git.html

The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it may have
links to documentation of older releases.

The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script that was used to maintain the two documentation
branches are found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.7 done on
Sept 30, 2011. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.7.1.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out.  The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
   implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

* This document

The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

Some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.9 done on
Jan 27, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.8.4.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
   implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras on gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
   gitweb.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.9 done on
Jan 27, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.9.3.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.11 done on
Jun 17, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.10.5.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.12 done on
Aug 19, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.11.5.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.12 done on
Aug 19, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.12.1.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.7.12 done on
Aug 19, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.12.3.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.8.0 done on
Oct 21, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.12.4.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such release was 1.8.0 done on
Oct 21, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.0.2.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they
typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.8.1 done on Dec 31, 2012 (or Jan 1, 2013, depending on
where you were when it happened). You can expect that the tip of the
"master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.0.3.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few gitweb interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they
typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.8.1 done on Dec 31, 2012 (or Jan 1, 2013, depending on
where you were when it happened). You can expect that the tip of the
"master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.1.2.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode.  Its log is available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they
typically are named with three dotted decimal digits.  The last such
release was 1.8.2 done on Mar 13, 2013. You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it.  The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.1.5.  New features never go to this branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape.  Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:

 - Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
   René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
   Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
   Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
   design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.

 - Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
   implementation issues.

 - Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
   cvsserver and cvsimport.

 - Paul Mackerras for gitk.

 - Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.

 - Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.

 - Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
   Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.

 - Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
   Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.

 - Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
   Porcelains.

 - J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
   documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).

 - Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.

 - David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
   (and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.

 - Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
   for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.

 - People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
   especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
   Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.2.0 done on Nov 26, 2014. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.2.1" will be the
first maintenance relaese for "2.2" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.3.0 done on Feb 5th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.2.1" will be the
first maintenance relaese for "2.2" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

[note to regular readers; there are a few updated paragraphs,
regarding our association with SFC and also our security mailing
list.]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.3.0 done on Feb 5th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.2" is the
second maintenance relaese for "2.3" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

[jc: I usually do this at the major release, but because we are
seeing many new folks due to GSoC, and also the newsletter is
getting closer to reality, so here is a special edition.]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

We will soon have a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/266066).  If
you want to help its publication, please contact Christian and/or
Thomas.

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

You can browse the HTML manual pages at:

	http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.3.0 done on Feb 5th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.4" is the
fourth maintenance relaese for "2.3" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community (visit
http://git.github.io/ to find "Git Rev News").  If you want to help
its publication, please contact Christian and/or Thomas.

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
	git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
	https://github.com/git/git/
	https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
	git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
	git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

        http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
	https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
        http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

        git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
        https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

	http://git-scm.com/docs/git

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.4.0 done on Apr 30th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.3" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Christian Couder]

Hi Junio,

On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

[...]

> * Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

It seems strange to me that the above section title still talks about
"trusted lieutenants and credits" ...

> Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
> should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
> and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
>
> Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
> own authoritative repository and maintainers:
>
>  - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
>
>         git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
>
>  - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
>
>         git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
>
>  - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
>
>         https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

... but it looks like there is only the "Other people's trees" part of
the message compared to what used to be in this section.

I am still wondering if it has been truncated on purpose or not.

Thanks anyway,
Christian.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail.com> writes:

> I am still wondering if it has been truncated on purpose or not.

The document is already too large and people come and go over time.
Maintaining that list becomes time sink, absorbing time better spent
on reviewing and polishing their patches rather than their names in
that list.  Rather than keeping a stale list forever, at some point
I decided to trim and start afresh, perhaps mentioning very notable
contribution from people there if there were any around the time the
message goes out to the list, which hasn't happened.

And with Git Rev News, I probably do not have to worry about it too
much, I hope ;-)

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.4.0 done on Apr 30th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.3" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building, using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.5.0 done on Jul 27th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.5.1" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.5" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building, using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.6.0 done on Sep 28th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.5.1" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.5" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building, using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories, branches and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.6.0 done on Sep 28th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.6.3" is the
third maintenance release for the "2.6" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Xue Fuqiao]

Hi Junio,

Thanks for writing this note!  It is very helpful.

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> The list archive is available at a few public sites:
>
>         http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
>         http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
>         http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

The second link is broken.  The following link is the correct version
now:

https://marc.info/?l=git

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Thanks.  I've known about the URL moving to marc.info for a long
time, and I am kind of surprised that I had this stale one left
un-updated for so long.

Fixed.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.7.0 done on Jan 4th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.6.3" is the
third maintenance release for the "2.6" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.7.0 done on Jan 4th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.6.3" is the
third maintenance release for the "2.6" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.8.0 done on Mar 28th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.7.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.7" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.8.0 done on Mar 28th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it.  The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.7.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.7" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.8.0 done on Mar 28th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.8.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.8" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

and rendered in the browser if you visit this page:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html

Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:

  http://git-scm.com/docs/git

* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.9 done on June 13th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.8.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.8" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:

        http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217

as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.9 done on June 13th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.8.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.8" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

is still available.  An alternative

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

will become usable once it catches up with old messages.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.9 done on June 13th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.9.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.9" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Eric Wong]

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
> 
> 	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
> 
> is still available.  An alternative
> 
>         nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
> 
> will become usable once it catches up with old messages.

Mostly caught up, I injected 33 more today which were
cross-posted (which tripped up some of my anti-spam rules) or
simply missed by gmane.

There may be more in some personal archives gmane doesn't
have...

I've also added NNTP links (including gmane) to the footer in
public-inbox.org/git

> message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
> so, like this:
> 
> 	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Some of the generated links have %40 in them which is the URI
escape for '@'.  I'll make a change to keep the '@' unescaped to
lessen confusion.

Due to the use of SQLite as a stable store for NNTP article
numbers; public-inbox can also do partial matching (up to 100
results, currently) to help correct legitimate mistakes; but I
wouldn't rely on it too much:

	public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jeff King]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:42:55PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
> > 
> > 	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
> > 
> > is still available.  An alternative
> > 
> >         nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
> > 
> > will become usable once it catches up with old messages.
> 
> Mostly caught up, I injected 33 more today which were
> cross-posted (which tripped up some of my anti-spam rules) or
> simply missed by gmane.
> 
> There may be more in some personal archives gmane doesn't
> have...

Is there an easy way to get _just_ the list of message-ids you are
storing (I know I can download the whole archive, but it's big)?

Then I can cross-reference with my archive. I doubt I'll have anything
significant that you don't. My archive of the early days was pulled from
gmane, though I have been collecting steadily via mailing list delivery
since 2007 or so.

-Peff

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Eric Wong]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:42:55PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> > > is still available.  An alternative
> > > 
> > >         nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
> > > 
> > > will become usable once it catches up with old messages.
> > 
> > Mostly caught up, I injected 33 more today which were
> > cross-posted (which tripped up some of my anti-spam rules) or
> > simply missed by gmane.
> > 
> > There may be more in some personal archives gmane doesn't
> > have...
> 
> Is there an easy way to get _just_ the list of message-ids you are
> storing (I know I can download the whole archive, but it's big)?

XHDR (or HDR) over NNTP should do it (that's how I checked
against gmane):
--------8<-----
use Net::NNTP;
my $nntp = Net::NNTP->new($ENV{NNTPSERVER} || 'news.public-inbox.org');
my ($num, $first, $last) = $nntp->group('inbox.comp.version-control.git');
my $batch = 10000;
my $i;
for ($i = $first; $i < $last; $i += $batch) {
	my $j = $i + $batch - 1;
	$j = $last if $j > $last;
	my $num2mid = $nntp->xhdr('Message-ID', "$i-$j");
	for my $n ($i..$j) {
		defined(my $mid = $num2mid->{$n}) or next;
		print "$mid\n";
	}
}

# and I forgot to optimize XHDR/HDR further in public-inbox-nntpd.
# Oh well, it seems to work, at least.

> Then I can cross-reference with my archive. I doubt I'll have anything
> significant that you don't. My archive of the early days was pulled from
> gmane, though I have been collecting steadily via mailing list delivery
> since 2007 or so.

What's odd is there's some messages with two Message-ID fields
from gmane from the old days, too.  I'll dig a bit another time.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jeff King]

On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 09:04:32AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:

> > Is there an easy way to get _just_ the list of message-ids you are
> > storing (I know I can download the whole archive, but it's big)?
> 
> XHDR (or HDR) over NNTP should do it (that's how I checked
> against gmane):
> --------8<-----
> use Net::NNTP;
> my $nntp = Net::NNTP->new($ENV{NNTPSERVER} || 'news.public-inbox.org');
> my ($num, $first, $last) = $nntp->group('inbox.comp.version-control.git');
> my $batch = 10000;
> my $i;
> for ($i = $first; $i < $last; $i += $batch) {
> 	my $j = $i + $batch - 1;
> 	$j = $last if $j > $last;
> 	my $num2mid = $nntp->xhdr('Message-ID', "$i-$j");
> 	for my $n ($i..$j) {
> 		defined(my $mid = $num2mid->{$n}) or next;
> 		print "$mid\n";
> 	}
> }

Thanks, that's perfect.

I collected the message-ids from my archive. Interestingly, I had a
dozen or so that did not have message-ids at all. I think most of them
are from patches that put the "From " line in the body, like this one:

  http://public-inbox.org/git/20070311033833.GB10781@spearce.org/

and then they got corrupted on a round-trip through one of the bad mbox
formats (probably downloading from gmane, I'd guess; the export there
uses mbox, and I use maildir myself, so it probably got split badly
years ago). Anyway, public-inbox seems to get this case right, which is
good.

I had several hundred message ids that you didn't. About half of them
were spam or other junk. I weeded them out manually (mostly by picking
through the subjects, so possibly there's some error). The end result is
279 messages that I think are legitimate that you don't have.

I'll send them to you off-list, as the mbox is about 300K, which the
list will reject.

-Peff

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Eric Wong]

Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> I collected the message-ids from my archive. Interestingly, I had a
> dozen or so that did not have message-ids at all. I think most of them
> are from patches that put the "From " line in the body, like this one:
> 
>   http://public-inbox.org/git/20070311033833.GB10781@spearce.org/
> 
> and then they got corrupted on a round-trip through one of the bad mbox
> formats (probably downloading from gmane, I'd guess; the export there
> uses mbox, and I use maildir myself, so it probably got split badly
> years ago). Anyway, public-inbox seems to get this case right, which is
> good.

Yes, I was somewhat careful to check for proper mboxes from gmane;
I just missed entire ranges :x

What's also interesting about the thread you highlighed is the
extra '<>' when you started that thread; and I have a bug where
I strip off an extra '>' which needs to be fixed...

I wonder if I should make "editorial" changes to fixup user bugs,
but then there's also bunch of messages which are replies to <y>
because git-send-email had usability problems back in the day...

> I had several hundred message ids that you didn't. About half of them
> were spam or other junk. I weeded them out manually (mostly by picking
> through the subjects, so possibly there's some error). The end result is
> 279 messages that I think are legitimate that you don't have.
> 
> I'll send them to you off-list, as the mbox is about 300K, which the
> list will reject.

Thanks, should all be imported.

The one which started the thread belonging to
<loom.20100716T103549-783@post.gmane.org> was really iffy,
but I kept it; as well as an "unsubscribe" one; I guess those
people are shamed for life :)


  git cat-file blob HEAD:b7/5bb577d76487bc9aebf0656d4e03eff22049f4

is totally legit, but doesn't seem to show up properly,
so there's another bug I need to fix.  For the moment, the
following also works:

	public-inbox.org/git/b75bb577d76487bc9aebf0656d4e03eff22049f4/
(but I guess it was reposted as <26299.4828321554$1213013668@news.gmane.org>

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Eric Wong]

Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
> Thanks, should all be imported.

Oops, missed one which was missing X-Mailing-List (causing
it to not get imported) and had "X-No-Archive: yes" set;
which meant I couldn't get it from gmane this year.

Hmm... XNAY defeats the point of public-inbox (and probably the
point of public-to-all mailing lists); so I don't think it's
worth honoring.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jeff King]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:27:06AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:

> What's also interesting about the thread you highlighed is the
> extra '<>' when you started that thread; and I have a bug where
> I strip off an extra '>' which needs to be fixed...

Oh, that's interesting. It's not in the message that started the thread;
the bug is in the in-reply-to headers of the patches themselves. I don't
remember what I was using to send patches back then. It might have been
send-email, and I suspect I did:

  git send-email --in-reply-to='<whatever>'

after cutting-and-pasting '<whatever>' from the cover letter.

> I wonder if I should make "editorial" changes to fixup user bugs,
> but then there's also bunch of messages which are replies to <y>
> because git-send-email had usability problems back in the day...

I wouldn't go too far in editorial changes. I made a few when skimming
the messages I just sent for spam, and dropped some empty messages, or
"unsubscribe me" ones. But it's not worth the human effort to go back
and scrub list archives from 10 years ago.

Fixing up an extra "<>" is easily done once in your parsing scripts,
though, and I'd be surprised if I'm the only one to have made that
mistake.

> The one which started the thread belonging to
> <loom.20100716T103549-783@post.gmane.org> was really iffy,

I think I exercised editorial control over similar "your software is now
listed in our archive!" messages in what I sent. But yeah, there's going
to be some spam and some cruft in the archive. It's just a fact of life.
The solution is good searching and organizing tools to find the signal
you're looking for, not to make sure the noise hits zero.

>   git cat-file blob HEAD:b7/5bb577d76487bc9aebf0656d4e03eff22049f4
> 
> is totally legit, but doesn't seem to show up properly,

Heh, yeah, I saw that one (and I think it broke some of my initial
scripting, which foolishly assumed nobody had message-ids with spaces in
them).

-Peff

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jeff King]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 02:12:34AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:

> Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
> > Thanks, should all be imported.
> 
> Oops, missed one which was missing X-Mailing-List (causing
> it to not get imported) and had "X-No-Archive: yes" set;
> which meant I couldn't get it from gmane this year.
> 
> Hmm... XNAY defeats the point of public-inbox (and probably the
> point of public-to-all mailing lists); so I don't think it's
> worth honoring.

I didn't even think to look for that header. It looks like it's
basically all one guy. I would argue that it should not be honored for
the git dev list, if only because those emails are a record of the
provenance of patches. The Signed-off-by is a certification that the
patch is OK to submit, but it's presumably worth more with an audit
trail including the email headers.

(Also, I have always found it a little silly to post publicly with a
"please don't anybody record this!" header).

-Peff

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Philip Oakley]

From: "Eric Wong" <e@80x24.org>
>
> Yes, I was somewhat careful to check for proper mboxes from gmane;
> I just missed entire ranges :x
>

There were a number of messages that were listed by gmane as being in the 
various Git for Windows lists such as msysgit, especially when the messages 
went to both lists (as the issue had common cause) that failed to get onto 
the regualr gmane list.

Are these something that has been included?

Philip

A quick search on a possible message gave 
https://public-inbox.org/git/55BF6808.1000500@web.de/ which has no parent, 
but that parent actually only went to the msysgit list, so no real surprise 
there, but I do remember some other cases that were on list - I just can't 
find them at the moment :-(.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Eric Wong]

Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org> wrote:
> From: "Eric Wong" <e@80x24.org>
> >
> >Yes, I was somewhat careful to check for proper mboxes from gmane;
> >I just missed entire ranges :x
> >
> 
> There were a number of messages that were listed by gmane as being in the
> various Git for Windows lists such as msysgit, especially when the messages
> went to both lists (as the issue had common cause) that failed to get onto
> the regualr gmane list.
> 
> Are these something that has been included?

If they were on both lists, yes, gmane seems to miss some of
those messages, unfortunately.

> Philip
> 
> A quick search on a possible message gave
> https://public-inbox.org/git/55BF6808.1000500@web.de/ which has no parent,
> but that parent actually only went to the msysgit list, so no real surprise
> there, but I do remember some other cases that were on list - I just can't
> find them at the moment :-(.

If a message was only posted exclusively on other lists, it
should stay there and it's archives.  public-inbox provides a
way to lookup external messages by Message-ID for this reason.

Is there a way to lookup messages by Message-ID from the msysgit
archives?  I could add it to the existing list of alternate
Message-ID lookup services:

  https://public-inbox.org/meta/20160814054731.26194-1-e@80x24.org/

GoogleGroups doesn't seem usable without JavaScript at all,
unfortunately :<

I don't think the msysgit archives would be too large and I
wouldn't mind hosting them myself.  But, users on GoogleGroups
may not be used to our conventions and not appreciate having
their unobfuscated addresses exposed or reply-to-all...

I will probably add an option to support centralized lists to
public-inbox sometime, though.  I don't like centralization,
but completely inaccessible archives are worse.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.10 done on Sep 2nd, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.9.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.9" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Jakub Narębski]

W dniu 03.09.2016 o 04:17, Junio C Hamano pisze:

> Please remember to always state
> 
>  - what you wanted to achieve;
> 
>  - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
>    the behavior);

I wonder if it be worth adding to not use aliases (or expand them).  I have
seen quite a few such questions on StackOverflow...

> 
>  - what you saw happen (X above);
> 
>  - what you expected to see (Y above); and
> 
>  - how the last two are different.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail.com> writes:

> W dniu 03.09.2016 o 04:17, Junio C Hamano pisze:
>
>> Please remember to always state
>> 
>>  - what you wanted to achieve;
>> 
>>  - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
>>    the behavior);
>
> I wonder if it be worth adding to not use aliases (or expand them).  I have
> seen quite a few such questions on StackOverflow...

    - how others can reproduce what you did (the version of git and
      the command sequence);

perhaps?

>> 
>>  - what you saw happen (X above);
>> 
>>  - what you expected to see (Y above); and
>> 
>>  - how the last two are different.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.10 done on Sep 2nd, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.9.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.9" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.11 done on Nov 29th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.10.2"
is the second maintenance release for the "2.10" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.11.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.11" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.14 done on Aug 4th, 2017.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.15 done on Oct 30th, 2017.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi Junio,

On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
> requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
> the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
> subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
> everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
> I am not subscribed".

I have heard about a dozen complaints that mails were simply eaten by the
mailing list. At least some of those cases were due to HTML (or
HTML/plain) mails being quietly dropped, and it caused more than just
minor frustration.

Maybe mention this in your maintainer's note, to help stave off such
problems?

Ciao,
Dscho

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.15 done on Oct 30th, 2017.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

[jc: as I said earlier, I'll be offline for a week, but remembered
that I haven't sent this out for a while---I tried to make a habit
of sending this message out after every feature release, and we had
one recently, so it is a good time to send one from the airport
lounge before I fly out.]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://public-inbox.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
	nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.15 done on Oct 30th, 2017.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:

        git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.27 done on Jun 1st, 2020.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.26.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.26" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch.  This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more.  The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Kaartic Sivaraam]

Hi Junio,

On 01-06-2020 22:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 
> There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
> News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
>

It seems the Rev News page has moved to:

    https://git.github.io/rev_news/index.html

The following works too:

    https://git.github.io/rev_news

> 
> * Reporting bugs
> 
> When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
> your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
> way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
> in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
> correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
> that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
> to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
> 
> Please remember to always state
> 
>  - what you wanted to achieve;
> 
>  - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
>    the behavior);
> 
>  - what you saw happen (X above);
> 
>  - what you expected to see (Y above); and
> 
>  - how the last two are different.
> 
> See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
> hints.
> 

I wonder if it might be worth mentioning `git bugreport` somewhere here.

> When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
> please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
> even have different directory structures).
> 

Thanks for routinely sending these informative notes! :)

-- 
Sivaraam

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail.com> writes:

> On 01-06-2020 22:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> 
>> There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
>> News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
>>
>
> It seems the Rev News page has moved to:
>
>     https://git.github.io/rev_news/index.html
>
> The following works too:
>
>     https://git.github.io/rev_news

Thanks.  I am on "vacation", so will address this later in the week.

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

[Administrivia]
    As I sent the latest issue of the "What's cooking" report
    yesterday, and there is no change other than the "v0
    repositories take any extensions known to us for now" regression
    fixes in today's rc1, I am not sending a new "What's cooking"
    out, even though we tagged 2.28.0-rc1 today.  Instead, I'll send
    this one out, as it has been a while...


Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.27 done on Jun 1st, 2020.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.26.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.26" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  git://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.29 done on Oct 19th, 2020.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.30 done on Dec 28th, 2020.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.31 done on Mar 15th, 2021.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.31 done on Mar 15th, 2021.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Bagas Sanjaya]

On 27/03/21 05.53, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Welcome to the Git development community.
> 
> This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
> project is managed, and how you can work with it.
> 
> The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
> do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
> that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
> learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
> few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
> others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
> list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
> reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
> folder).
> 
> 
> * Mailing list and the community
> 
> The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
> requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
> the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
> subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
> everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
> I am not subscribed".
> 
> As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
> that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
> GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
> 
> Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
> project convention.
> 
> If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
> several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
> but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
> do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
> getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
> your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
> right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
> becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
> 
> The list archive is available at a few public sites:
> 
>          http://lore.kernel.org/git/
>          http://marc.info/?l=git
>          http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
> 
> For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
> 
> 	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
>          nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
> 
> are available.
> 
> When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
> message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
> so, like this:
> 
> 	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
> 
> Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
> stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
> message in the Git list).
> 
> Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
> the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode.  Their logs are
> available at:
> 
>          http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
>          http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
> 
> There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
> News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
> 
> Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
> organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
> liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.
> 
> For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
> towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
> tree, or:
> 
>      https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
> 
> 
> * Reporting bugs
> 
> When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
> your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
> way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
> in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
> correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
> that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
> to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
> 
> Please remember to always state
> 
>   - what you wanted to achieve;
> 
>   - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
>     the behavior);
> 
>   - what you saw happen (X above);
> 
>   - what you expected to see (Y above); and
> 
>   - how the last two are different.
> 
> See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
> hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
> make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
> 
> If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
> it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
> our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
> a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
> vulnerabilities, including:
> 
>    - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
>    - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
>    - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
> 
> where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
> leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
> 
> 
> * Repositories and documentation.
> 
> My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
> 
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
>    https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
>    https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
>    https://github.com/git/git/
>    https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
> 
> This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
> individual topics broken out:
> 
>    https://github.com/gitster/git/
> 
> A few web interfaces are found at:
> 
>    http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
>    https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
>    http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
> 
> Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
> found in:
> 
>    https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
>    https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
>    https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
> 
> The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
> viewed online at:
> 
>    https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
> 
> 
> * How various branches are used.
> 
> There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
> of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
> 
> The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
> ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
> "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
> named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
> switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
> three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
> 
> The last such release was 2.31 done on Mar 15th, 2021.  You can expect
> that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
> the released versions.
> 
> Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
> "master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
> release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
> from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
> several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
> of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
> four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
> to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
> feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
> incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
> was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
> 
> New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
> primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
> 
> A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
> series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
> branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
> when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
> there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
> topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
> 
> Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
> general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
> not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
> breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
> topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
> is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
> "next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
> the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
> 
> The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
> remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
> is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
> and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
> please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
> branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
> in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
> more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
> or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
> was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
> 
> You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
> currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
> to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
> The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
> early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
> are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
> maintainer for his daily work.
> 
> The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
> usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
> "master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
> using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
> Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
> get ejected from "next" when this happens.
> 
> A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
> is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
> by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
> and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
> incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
> patches and how the problem was corrected.
> 
> Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
> release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
> needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
> or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
> fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
> 
> 
> * Other people's trees.
> 
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
> should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
> and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
> 
> Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
> own authoritative repository and maintainers:
> 
>   - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
> 
>          https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
> 
>   - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
> 
>          git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
> 
>   - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
> 
> 	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
> 
> When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
> please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
> even have different directory structures).
> 
Grazie Junio for this message note.

I would like to see the note above in CONTRIBUTING.md, because new
contributors will most likely read CONTRIBUTING.md rather than searching
this ML archive for the note.

-- 
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on FreeNode (historically, but
the IRC situation is in flux at the moment).  Their logs are available
at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.32 done on June 6th, 2021.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the 'maint' branch.  It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being.  Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on FreeNode (historically, but
the IRC situation is in flux at the moment).  Their logs are available
at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.33 done on August 16th, 2021.  You can
expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than
any of the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being.  Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on FreeNode (historically, but
the IRC situation is in flux at the moment).  Their logs are available
at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.35 done on Jan 24th, 2022.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being.  Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.36 done on Apr 18th, 2022.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being.  Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.37 done on June 27th, 2022.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being.  Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.37 done on June 27th, 2022.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being.  Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.38 done on Oct 3rd, 2022.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being.  Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.38 done on Oct 3rd, 2022.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.38.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.38" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more.  The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being.  Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        http://lore.kernel.org/git/
        http://marc.info/?l=git
        http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat.  Their logs are
available at:

        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
        http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.40 done on Mar 13rd, 2023.  You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time.  The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release).  These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).

New features never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".  Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen.  There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch.  This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more, but can be used by contributors to anticipate what topics from
others may cause conflict with your work, and find people who are working.
on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts get out of
control. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work.  When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight.  Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.  Using the tip of this branch, instead of
'next', as your daily driver is also recommended.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

I used to send this soon after each feature release, but somehow I
forgot for about a full year X-<.  Better late than never, I guess.

--- >8 ---
Welcome to the Git development community.

This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.

The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>.  Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.


* Mailing list and the community

The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger.kernel.org>.  You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages.  The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".

As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor.  If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.

Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.

If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

The list archive is available at a few public sites:

        https://lore.kernel.org/git/
        https://marc.info/?l=git
        https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/

For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:

	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
        nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git

are available.

When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:

	https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org

Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).

Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat.  Their logs are
available at:

        https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
        https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last

There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).

Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/).  To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy.org>.

For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:

    https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md


* Reporting bugs

When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work".  "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken".  It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken.  People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.

Please remember to always state

 - what you wanted to achieve;

 - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
   the behavior);

 - what you saw happen (X above);

 - what you expected to see (Y above); and

 - how the last two are different.

See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.  Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.

If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups.com>.  This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:

  - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
  - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
  - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people

where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.


* Repositories and documentation.

My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
  https://github.com/git/git/
  https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/

This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:

  https://github.com/gitster/git/

A few web interfaces are found at:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
  https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
  https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git

Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:

  https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
  https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/

The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:

  https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html


* How various branches are used.

There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".  They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them.  Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme.  Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.

The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting.  Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch.  They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").

The last such release was 2.44 done on Feb 22nd, 2024.  We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.

Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point.  Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it.  Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time.  The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release).  These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.43.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.43" series).

New features almost never go to the "maint" branch.  It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.

When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out.  The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.

Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.  In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master".  It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage.  A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master".  Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".

The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.

The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control.  It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.

Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet.  When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".

You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight.  Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case.  The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.

The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either.  After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.

A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.  The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.

Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release.  There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".


* Other people's trees.

Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent.  As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.

Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:

 - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:

        https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git

 - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:

        git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk

 - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:

	https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/

When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Brian Lyles]

Hi Junio

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:18 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
> several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
> but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
> do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
> getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
> your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
> right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
> becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.

I think it would be good to revise this wording in future iterations.
"Totally uninteresting" is a bit ambiguous, and also sounds quite
negative (at least to me).

To me, this initially sounded like it meant "your patch was not
something that the git maintainers would be interested in accepting". I
*suspect* that what is actually meant here is "your patch was
straightforward and non-controversial to the point that no members of
the list saw it and felt the need to comment on it", though to be honest
I am not 100% sure.

If it is expected that a "totally uninteresting" patch might, in fact,
end up in your tree without further comment, I think it could be helpful
to indicate that as well.

Here is what comes to my mind based on my (very likely not full)
understanding of the process:

    If you have sent a patch to the list and have not heard any response
	for several days, a few things may have happened:
	
	- Your patch was straightforward and non-controversial, so no
	  members of the list felt the need to comment on it
	- The members of the list that would review your patch do not have
	  the time to process them at the moment
	- Your patch was simply lost in the noise

	If you are unsure, keep an eye on the next few "What's cooking in
	git.git" emails. If your patch does not make an appearance there
	within a week or so, you may want to send out a reminder. It often
	helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending a
	reminder.

I don't know how accurate that actually is, but I think it conveys the
tone and clarity that I am getting at.

-- 
Thank you,
Brian Lyles

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:

> To me, this initially sounded like it meant "your patch was not
> something that the git maintainers would be interested in accepting". I
> *suspect* that what is actually meant here is "your patch was
> straightforward and non-controversial to the point that no members of
> the list saw it and felt the need to comment on it", though to be honest
> I am not 100% sure.

I actually meant what I wrote.

It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
deserve anybody's attention.  But it is also possible that it was
lost in the noise.

And pinging on the topic by responding to your own message is not
just acceptable but very much appreciated way to remind others who
may have missed it, in case it is the latter.

If a topic is truly obvious and straight-forward, it may be taken
silently to 'seen' and even to 'next', and since it is suggested for
the contributors to look at "master..seen", such a topic would not
fall into the "hear nothing about it from anybody for a long time"
category anyway.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Brian Lyles]

On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:01 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> To me, this initially sounded like it meant "your patch was not
>> something that the git maintainers would be interested in accepting". I
>> *suspect* that what is actually meant here is "your patch was
>> straightforward and non-controversial to the point that no members of
>> the list saw it and felt the need to comment on it", though to be honest
>> I am not 100% sure.
> 
> I actually meant what I wrote.
> 
> It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
> response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
> deserve anybody's attention.  But it is also possible that it was
> lost in the noise.
> 
> And pinging on the topic by responding to your own message is not
> just acceptable but very much appreciated way to remind others who
> may have missed it, in case it is the latter.
> 
> If a topic is truly obvious and straight-forward, it may be taken
> silently to 'seen' and even to 'next', and since it is suggested for
> the contributors to look at "master..seen", such a topic would not
> fall into the "hear nothing about it from anybody for a long time"
> category anyway.

Thanks for the clarification. I do still think that a change in the
wording and tone of this section could help make the project appear more
friendly to new contributors. Phrases like "totally uninteresting",
"uninspiring", "looked useless", and "did not deserve anybody's
attention" are all fairly harsh sounding, even if sometimes true.

Something more along the lines of "Mailing list members may not have
seen the value of the proposed changes" or "Your patch may not have
presented a convincing argument for being accepted" might land a little
more gently and make someone more willing to make another attempt at a
more compelling patch rather than feeling harshly rejected and leaving
with a bad taste in their mouth about the project like has happened in
the past [1].

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq7ck7x10y.fsf@gitster.g/

Simply food for thought from someone relatively new to the list.

-- 
Thank you,
Brian Lyles

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:

>> I actually meant what I wrote.
>> 
>> It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
>> response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
>> deserve anybody's attention.  But it is also possible that it was
>> lost in the noise.
>> ...
> Thanks for the clarification. I do still think that a change in the
> wording and tone of this section could help make the project appear more
> friendly to new contributors. Phrases like "totally uninteresting",
> "uninspiring", "looked useless", and "did not deserve anybody's
> attention" are all fairly harsh sounding, even if sometimes true.

You completely lost me.  How much harsh words are used before "But
it is also possible" would not make the project sound less friendly
at all.

Let me try again.

You see your patch was sent but did not receive any reaction.  You
might start thinking: "hmm, perhaps my patch was so horrible" and
you might think all the bad and harsh things about the quality of
your patch.

But do not let such thought stop you from pinging the thread again,
because the quality of your patch may not at all be the reason why
you did not receive any reaction.  It could be just people were
swamped and your patch fell into cracks, and there was nothing wrong
with it.

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Brian Lyles]

> "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>> I actually meant what I wrote.
>>> 
>>> It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
>>> response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
>>> deserve anybody's attention.  But it is also possible that it was
>>> lost in the noise.
>>> ...
>> Thanks for the clarification. I do still think that a change in the
>> wording and tone of this section could help make the project appear more
>> friendly to new contributors. Phrases like "totally uninteresting",
>> "uninspiring", "looked useless", and "did not deserve anybody's
>> attention" are all fairly harsh sounding, even if sometimes true.
> 
> You completely lost me.  How much harsh words are used before "But
> it is also possible" would not make the project sound less friendly
> at all.
> 
> Let me try again.
> 
> You see your patch was sent but did not receive any reaction.  You
> might start thinking: "hmm, perhaps my patch was so horrible" and
> you might think all the bad and harsh things about the quality of
> your patch.
> 
> But do not let such thought stop you from pinging the thread again,
> because the quality of your patch may not at all be the reason why
> you did not receive any reaction.  It could be just people were
> swamped and your patch fell into cracks, and there was nothing wrong
> with it.

Ah, okay -- I think I am better understanding the intent vs. how I
(mis)interpreted it initially. My initial interpretation was more along
the lines of "there are two possibilities: Either it was uninteresting,
or it got missed". This re-phrasing reads more as "don't assume it was
uninteresting, it may have simply been missed". Both true, but the
latter reads better in my opinion.

Thank you for clarifying. I will let you decide if some updated wording
is warranted in future notes from the maintainer, or if I simply
interpreted things in a way that you do not think others would.

-- 
Thank you,
Brian Lyles

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:

> Thank you for clarifying. I will let you decide if some updated wording
> is warranted in future notes from the maintainer, or if I simply
> interpreted things in a way that you do not think others would.

Perhaps like this, then?

diff --git a/MaintNotes b/MaintNotes
index 57aa6dd..18d8bcb 100644
--- a/MaintNotes
+++ b/MaintNotes
@@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
 project convention.
 
 If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
-several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
-but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
+several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
+uninteresting; it may mearly mean that it was lost in the noise.  Please
 do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
 getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
 your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Brian Lyles]

Hi Junio

On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:06 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

> "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> Thank you for clarifying. I will let you decide if some updated wording
>> is warranted in future notes from the maintainer, or if I simply
>> interpreted things in a way that you do not think others would.
> 
> Perhaps like this, then?
> 
> diff --git a/MaintNotes b/MaintNotes
> index 57aa6dd..18d8bcb 100644
> --- a/MaintNotes
> +++ b/MaintNotes
> @@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
>  project convention.
>  
>  If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
> -several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
> -but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise.  Please
> +several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
> +uninteresting; it may mearly mean that it was lost in the noise.  Please
>  do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.  Messages
>  getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
>  your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them

I think that makes the intended meaning much clearer. Minor spelling
correction: s/mearly/merely/

-- 
Thank you,
Brian Lyles

Re: A note from the maintainer

[Junio C Hamano]

"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail.com> writes:

> I think that makes the intended meaning much clearer. Minor spelling
> correction: s/mearly/merely/

Thanks.