| //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
| |
| GIT - the stupid content tracker |
| |
| //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// |
| "git" can mean anything, depending on your mood. |
| |
| - random three-letter combination that is pronounceable, and not |
| actually used by any common UNIX command. The fact that it is a |
| mispronunciation of "get" may or may not be relevant. |
| - stupid. contemptible and despicable. simple. Take your pick from the |
| dictionary of slang. |
| - "global information tracker": you're in a good mood, and it actually |
| works for you. Angels sing, and a light suddenly fills the room. |
| - "goddamn idiotic truckload of sh*t": when it breaks |
| |
| This is a stupid (but extremely fast) directory content manager. It |
| doesn't do a whole lot, but what it 'does' do is track directory |
| contents efficiently. |
| |
| There are two object abstractions: the "object database", and the |
| "current directory cache" aka "index". |
| |
| The Object Database |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| The object database is literally just a content-addressable collection |
| of objects. All objects are named by their content, which is |
| approximated by the SHA1 hash of the object itself. Objects may refer |
| to other objects (by referencing their SHA1 hash), and so you can |
| build up a hierarchy of objects. |
| |
| All objects have a statically determined "type" aka "tag", which is |
| determined at object creation time, and which identifies the format of |
| the object (i.e. how it is used, and how it can refer to other |
| objects). There are currently four different object types: "blob", |
| "tree", "commit" and "tag". |
| |
| A "blob" object cannot refer to any other object, and is, like the type |
| implies, a pure storage object containing some user data. It is used to |
| actually store the file data, i.e. a blob object is associated with some |
| particular version of some file. |
| |
| A "tree" object is an object that ties one or more "blob" objects into a |
| directory structure. In addition, a tree object can refer to other tree |
| objects, thus creating a directory hierarchy. |
| |
| A "commit" object ties such directory hierarchies together into |
| a DAG of revisions - each "commit" is associated with exactly one tree |
| (the directory hierarchy at the time of the commit). In addition, a |
| "commit" refers to one or more "parent" commit objects that describe the |
| history of how we arrived at that directory hierarchy. |
| |
| As a special case, a commit object with no parents is called the "root" |
| object, and is the point of an initial project commit. Each project |
| must have at least one root, and while you can tie several different |
| root objects together into one project by creating a commit object which |
| has two or more separate roots as its ultimate parents, that's probably |
| just going to confuse people. So aim for the notion of "one root object |
| per project", even if git itself does not enforce that. |
| |
| A "tag" object symbolically identifies and can be used to sign other |
| objects. It contains the identifier and type of another object, a |
| symbolic name (of course!) and, optionally, a signature. |
| |
| Regardless of object type, all objects share the following |
| characteristics: they are all deflated with zlib, and have a header |
| that not only specifies their type, but also provides size information |
| about the data in the object. It's worth noting that the SHA1 hash |
| that is used to name the object is the hash of the original data |
| plus this header, so `sha1sum` 'file' does not match the object name |
| for 'file'. |
| (Historical note: in the dawn of the age of git the hash |
| was the sha1 of the 'compressed' object.) |
| |
| As a result, the general consistency of an object can always be tested |
| independently of the contents or the type of the object: all objects can |
| be validated by verifying that (a) their hashes match the content of the |
| file and (b) the object successfully inflates to a stream of bytes that |
| forms a sequence of <ascii type without space> + <space> + <ascii decimal |
| size> + <byte\0> + <binary object data>. |
| |
| The structured objects can further have their structure and |
| connectivity to other objects verified. This is generally done with |
| the `git-fsck-objects` program, which generates a full dependency graph |
| of all objects, and verifies their internal consistency (in addition |
| to just verifying their superficial consistency through the hash). |
| |
| The object types in some more detail: |
| |
| Blob Object |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| A "blob" object is nothing but a binary blob of data, and doesn't |
| refer to anything else. There is no signature or any other |
| verification of the data, so while the object is consistent (it 'is' |
| indexed by its sha1 hash, so the data itself is certainly correct), it |
| has absolutely no other attributes. No name associations, no |
| permissions. It is purely a blob of data (i.e. normally "file |
| contents"). |
| |
| In particular, since the blob is entirely defined by its data, if two |
| files in a directory tree (or in multiple different versions of the |
| repository) have the same contents, they will share the same blob |
| object. The object is totally independent of its location in the |
| directory tree, and renaming a file does not change the object that |
| file is associated with in any way. |
| |
| A blob is typically created when gitlink:git-update-index[1] |
| is run, and its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1]. |
| |
| Tree Object |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| The next hierarchical object type is the "tree" object. A tree object |
| is a list of mode/name/blob data, sorted by name. Alternatively, the |
| mode data may specify a directory mode, in which case instead of |
| naming a blob, that name is associated with another TREE object. |
| |
| Like the "blob" object, a tree object is uniquely determined by the |
| set contents, and so two separate but identical trees will always |
| share the exact same object. This is true at all levels, i.e. it's |
| true for a "leaf" tree (which does not refer to any other trees, only |
| blobs) as well as for a whole subdirectory. |
| |
| For that reason a "tree" object is just a pure data abstraction: it |
| has no history, no signatures, no verification of validity, except |
| that since the contents are again protected by the hash itself, we can |
| trust that the tree is immutable and its contents never change. |
| |
| So you can trust the contents of a tree to be valid, the same way you |
| can trust the contents of a blob, but you don't know where those |
| contents 'came' from. |
| |
| Side note on trees: since a "tree" object is a sorted list of |
| "filename+content", you can create a diff between two trees without |
| actually having to unpack two trees. Just ignore all common parts, |
| and your diff will look right. In other words, you can effectively |
| (and efficiently) tell the difference between any two random trees by |
| O(n) where "n" is the size of the difference, rather than the size of |
| the tree. |
| |
| Side note 2 on trees: since the name of a "blob" depends entirely and |
| exclusively on its contents (i.e. there are no names or permissions |
| involved), you can see trivial renames or permission changes by |
| noticing that the blob stayed the same. However, renames with data |
| changes need a smarter "diff" implementation. |
| |
| A tree is created with gitlink:git-write-tree[1] and |
| its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-ls-tree[1]. |
| Two trees can be compared with gitlink:git-diff-tree[1]. |
| |
| Commit Object |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| The "commit" object is an object that introduces the notion of |
| history into the picture. In contrast to the other objects, it |
| doesn't just describe the physical state of a tree, it describes how |
| we got there, and why. |
| |
| A "commit" is defined by the tree-object that it results in, the |
| parent commits (zero, one or more) that led up to that point, and a |
| comment on what happened. Again, a commit is not trusted per se: |
| the contents are well-defined and "safe" due to the cryptographically |
| strong signatures at all levels, but there is no reason to believe |
| that the tree is "good" or that the merge information makes sense. |
| The parents do not have to actually have any relationship with the |
| result, for example. |
| |
| Note on commits: unlike real SCM's, commits do not contain |
| rename information or file mode change information. All of that is |
| implicit in the trees involved (the result tree, and the result trees |
| of the parents), and describing that makes no sense in this idiotic |
| file manager. |
| |
| A commit is created with gitlink:git-commit-tree[1] and |
| its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1]. |
| |
| Trust |
| ~~~~~ |
| An aside on the notion of "trust". Trust is really outside the scope |
| of "git", but it's worth noting a few things. First off, since |
| everything is hashed with SHA1, you 'can' trust that an object is |
| intact and has not been messed with by external sources. So the name |
| of an object uniquely identifies a known state - just not a state that |
| you may want to trust. |
| |
| Furthermore, since the SHA1 signature of a commit refers to the |
| SHA1 signatures of the tree it is associated with and the signatures |
| of the parent, a single named commit specifies uniquely a whole set |
| of history, with full contents. You can't later fake any step of the |
| way once you have the name of a commit. |
| |
| So to introduce some real trust in the system, the only thing you need |
| to do is to digitally sign just 'one' special note, which includes the |
| name of a top-level commit. Your digital signature shows others |
| that you trust that commit, and the immutability of the history of |
| commits tells others that they can trust the whole history. |
| |
| In other words, you can easily validate a whole archive by just |
| sending out a single email that tells the people the name (SHA1 hash) |
| of the top commit, and digitally sign that email using something |
| like GPG/PGP. |
| |
| To assist in this, git also provides the tag object... |
| |
| Tag Object |
| ~~~~~~~~~~ |
| Git provides the "tag" object to simplify creating, managing and |
| exchanging symbolic and signed tokens. The "tag" object at its |
| simplest simply symbolically identifies another object by containing |
| the sha1, type and symbolic name. |
| |
| However it can optionally contain additional signature information |
| (which git doesn't care about as long as there's less than 8k of |
| it). This can then be verified externally to git. |
| |
| Note that despite the tag features, "git" itself only handles content |
| integrity; the trust framework (and signature provision and |
| verification) has to come from outside. |
| |
| A tag is created with gitlink:git-mktag[1], |
| its data can be accessed by gitlink:git-cat-file[1], |
| and the signature can be verified by |
| gitlink:git-verify-tag[1]. |
| |
| |
| The "index" aka "Current Directory Cache" |
| ----------------------------------------- |
| The index is a simple binary file, which contains an efficient |
| representation of a virtual directory content at some random time. It |
| does so by a simple array that associates a set of names, dates, |
| permissions and content (aka "blob") objects together. The cache is |
| always kept ordered by name, and names are unique (with a few very |
| specific rules) at any point in time, but the cache has no long-term |
| meaning, and can be partially updated at any time. |
| |
| In particular, the index certainly does not need to be consistent with |
| the current directory contents (in fact, most operations will depend on |
| different ways to make the index 'not' be consistent with the directory |
| hierarchy), but it has three very important attributes: |
| |
| '(a) it can re-generate the full state it caches (not just the |
| directory structure: it contains pointers to the "blob" objects so |
| that it can regenerate the data too)' |
| |
| As a special case, there is a clear and unambiguous one-way mapping |
| from a current directory cache to a "tree object", which can be |
| efficiently created from just the current directory cache without |
| actually looking at any other data. So a directory cache at any one |
| time uniquely specifies one and only one "tree" object (but has |
| additional data to make it easy to match up that tree object with what |
| has happened in the directory) |
| |
| '(b) it has efficient methods for finding inconsistencies between that |
| cached state ("tree object waiting to be instantiated") and the |
| current state.' |
| |
| '(c) it can additionally efficiently represent information about merge |
| conflicts between different tree objects, allowing each pathname to be |
| associated with sufficient information about the trees involved that |
| you can create a three-way merge between them.' |
| |
| Those are the three ONLY things that the directory cache does. It's a |
| cache, and the normal operation is to re-generate it completely from a |
| known tree object, or update/compare it with a live tree that is being |
| developed. If you blow the directory cache away entirely, you generally |
| haven't lost any information as long as you have the name of the tree |
| that it described. |
| |
| At the same time, the index is at the same time also the |
| staging area for creating new trees, and creating a new tree always |
| involves a controlled modification of the index file. In particular, |
| the index file can have the representation of an intermediate tree that |
| has not yet been instantiated. So the index can be thought of as a |
| write-back cache, which can contain dirty information that has not yet |
| been written back to the backing store. |
| |
| |
| |
| The Workflow |
| ------------ |
| Generally, all "git" operations work on the index file. Some operations |
| work *purely* on the index file (showing the current state of the |
| index), but most operations move data to and from the index file. Either |
| from the database or from the working directory. Thus there are four |
| main combinations: |
| |
| 1) working directory -> index |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| You update the index with information from the working directory with |
| the gitlink:git-update-index[1] command. You |
| generally update the index information by just specifying the filename |
| you want to update, like so: |
| |
| git-update-index filename |
| |
| but to avoid common mistakes with filename globbing etc, the command |
| will not normally add totally new entries or remove old entries, |
| i.e. it will normally just update existing cache entries. |
| |
| To tell git that yes, you really do realize that certain files no |
| longer exist, or that new files should be added, you |
| should use the `--remove` and `--add` flags respectively. |
| |
| NOTE! A `--remove` flag does 'not' mean that subsequent filenames will |
| necessarily be removed: if the files still exist in your directory |
| structure, the index will be updated with their new status, not |
| removed. The only thing `--remove` means is that update-cache will be |
| considering a removed file to be a valid thing, and if the file really |
| does not exist any more, it will update the index accordingly. |
| |
| As a special case, you can also do `git-update-index --refresh`, which |
| will refresh the "stat" information of each index to match the current |
| stat information. It will 'not' update the object status itself, and |
| it will only update the fields that are used to quickly test whether |
| an object still matches its old backing store object. |
| |
| 2) index -> object database |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| You write your current index file to a "tree" object with the program |
| |
| git-write-tree |
| |
| that doesn't come with any options - it will just write out the |
| current index into the set of tree objects that describe that state, |
| and it will return the name of the resulting top-level tree. You can |
| use that tree to re-generate the index at any time by going in the |
| other direction: |
| |
| 3) object database -> index |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| You read a "tree" file from the object database, and use that to |
| populate (and overwrite - don't do this if your index contains any |
| unsaved state that you might want to restore later!) your current |
| index. Normal operation is just |
| |
| git-read-tree <sha1 of tree> |
| |
| and your index file will now be equivalent to the tree that you saved |
| earlier. However, that is only your 'index' file: your working |
| directory contents have not been modified. |
| |
| 4) index -> working directory |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| You update your working directory from the index by "checking out" |
| files. This is not a very common operation, since normally you'd just |
| keep your files updated, and rather than write to your working |
| directory, you'd tell the index files about the changes in your |
| working directory (i.e. `git-update-index`). |
| |
| However, if you decide to jump to a new version, or check out somebody |
| else's version, or just restore a previous tree, you'd populate your |
| index file with read-tree, and then you need to check out the result |
| with |
| |
| git-checkout-index filename |
| |
| or, if you want to check out all of the index, use `-a`. |
| |
| NOTE! git-checkout-index normally refuses to overwrite old files, so |
| if you have an old version of the tree already checked out, you will |
| need to use the "-f" flag ('before' the "-a" flag or the filename) to |
| 'force' the checkout. |
| |
| |
| Finally, there are a few odds and ends which are not purely moving |
| from one representation to the other: |
| |
| 5) Tying it all together |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| To commit a tree you have instantiated with "git-write-tree", you'd |
| create a "commit" object that refers to that tree and the history |
| behind it - most notably the "parent" commits that preceded it in |
| history. |
| |
| Normally a "commit" has one parent: the previous state of the tree |
| before a certain change was made. However, sometimes it can have two |
| or more parent commits, in which case we call it a "merge", due to the |
| fact that such a commit brings together ("merges") two or more |
| previous states represented by other commits. |
| |
| In other words, while a "tree" represents a particular directory state |
| of a working directory, a "commit" represents that state in "time", |
| and explains how we got there. |
| |
| You create a commit object by giving it the tree that describes the |
| state at the time of the commit, and a list of parents: |
| |
| git-commit-tree <tree> -p <parent> [-p <parent2> ..] |
| |
| and then giving the reason for the commit on stdin (either through |
| redirection from a pipe or file, or by just typing it at the tty). |
| |
| git-commit-tree will return the name of the object that represents |
| that commit, and you should save it away for later use. Normally, |
| you'd commit a new `HEAD` state, and while git doesn't care where you |
| save the note about that state, in practice we tend to just write the |
| result to the file pointed at by `.git/HEAD`, so that we can always see |
| what the last committed state was. |
| |
| Here is an ASCII art by Jon Loeliger that illustrates how |
| various pieces fit together. |
| |
| ------------ |
| |
| commit-tree |
| commit obj |
| +----+ |
| | | |
| | | |
| V V |
| +-----------+ |
| | Object DB | |
| | Backing | |
| | Store | |
| +-----------+ |
| ^ |
| write-tree | | |
| tree obj | | |
| | | read-tree |
| | | tree obj |
| V |
| +-----------+ |
| | Index | |
| | "cache" | |
| +-----------+ |
| update-index ^ |
| blob obj | | |
| | | |
| checkout-index -u | | checkout-index |
| stat | | blob obj |
| V |
| +-----------+ |
| | Working | |
| | Directory | |
| +-----------+ |
| |
| ------------ |
| |
| |
| 6) Examining the data |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| You can examine the data represented in the object database and the |
| index with various helper tools. For every object, you can use |
| gitlink:git-cat-file[1] to examine details about the |
| object: |
| |
| git-cat-file -t <objectname> |
| |
| shows the type of the object, and once you have the type (which is |
| usually implicit in where you find the object), you can use |
| |
| git-cat-file blob|tree|commit|tag <objectname> |
| |
| to show its contents. NOTE! Trees have binary content, and as a result |
| there is a special helper for showing that content, called |
| `git-ls-tree`, which turns the binary content into a more easily |
| readable form. |
| |
| It's especially instructive to look at "commit" objects, since those |
| tend to be small and fairly self-explanatory. In particular, if you |
| follow the convention of having the top commit name in `.git/HEAD`, |
| you can do |
| |
| git-cat-file commit HEAD |
| |
| to see what the top commit was. |
| |
| 7) Merging multiple trees |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| Git helps you do a three-way merge, which you can expand to n-way by |
| repeating the merge procedure arbitrary times until you finally |
| "commit" the state. The normal situation is that you'd only do one |
| three-way merge (two parents), and commit it, but if you like to, you |
| can do multiple parents in one go. |
| |
| To do a three-way merge, you need the two sets of "commit" objects |
| that you want to merge, use those to find the closest common parent (a |
| third "commit" object), and then use those commit objects to find the |
| state of the directory ("tree" object) at these points. |
| |
| To get the "base" for the merge, you first look up the common parent |
| of two commits with |
| |
| git-merge-base <commit1> <commit2> |
| |
| which will return you the commit they are both based on. You should |
| now look up the "tree" objects of those commits, which you can easily |
| do with (for example) |
| |
| git-cat-file commit <commitname> | head -1 |
| |
| since the tree object information is always the first line in a commit |
| object. |
| |
| Once you know the three trees you are going to merge (the one |
| "original" tree, aka the common case, and the two "result" trees, aka |
| the branches you want to merge), you do a "merge" read into the |
| index. This will complain if it has to throw away your old index contents, so you should |
| make sure that you've committed those - in fact you would normally |
| always do a merge against your last commit (which should thus match |
| what you have in your current index anyway). |
| |
| To do the merge, do |
| |
| git-read-tree -m -u <origtree> <yourtree> <targettree> |
| |
| which will do all trivial merge operations for you directly in the |
| index file, and you can just write the result out with |
| `git-write-tree`. |
| |
| Historical note. We did not have `-u` facility when this |
| section was first written, so we used to warn that |
| the merge is done in the index file, not in your |
| working tree, and your working tree will not match your |
| index after this step. |
| This is no longer true. The above command, thanks to `-u` |
| option, updates your working tree with the merge results for |
| paths that have been trivially merged. |
| |
| |
| 8) Merging multiple trees, continued |
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| |
| Sadly, many merges aren't trivial. If there are files that have |
| been added.moved or removed, or if both branches have modified the |
| same file, you will be left with an index tree that contains "merge |
| entries" in it. Such an index tree can 'NOT' be written out to a tree |
| object, and you will have to resolve any such merge clashes using |
| other tools before you can write out the result. |
| |
| You can examine such index state with `git-ls-files --unmerged` |
| command. An example: |
| |
| ------------------------------------------------ |
| $ git-read-tree -m $orig HEAD $target |
| $ git-ls-files --unmerged |
| 100644 263414f423d0e4d70dae8fe53fa34614ff3e2860 1 hello.c |
| 100644 06fa6a24256dc7e560efa5687fa84b51f0263c3a 2 hello.c |
| 100644 cc44c73eb783565da5831b4d820c962954019b69 3 hello.c |
| ------------------------------------------------ |
| |
| Each line of the `git-ls-files --unmerged` output begins with |
| the blob mode bits, blob SHA1, 'stage number', and the |
| filename. The 'stage number' is git's way to say which tree it |
| came from: stage 1 corresponds to `$orig` tree, stage 2 `HEAD` |
| tree, and stage3 `$target` tree. |
| |
| Earlier we said that trivial merges are done inside |
| `git-read-tree -m`. For example, if the file did not change |
| from `$orig` to `HEAD` nor `$target`, or if the file changed |
| from `$orig` to `HEAD` and `$orig` to `$target` the same way, |
| obviously the final outcome is what is in `HEAD`. What the |
| above example shows is that file `hello.c` was changed from |
| `$orig` to `HEAD` and `$orig` to `$target` in a different way. |
| You could resolve this by running your favorite 3-way merge |
| program, e.g. `diff3` or `merge`, on the blob objects from |
| these three stages yourself, like this: |
| |
| ------------------------------------------------ |
| $ git-cat-file blob 263414f... >hello.c~1 |
| $ git-cat-file blob 06fa6a2... >hello.c~2 |
| $ git-cat-file blob cc44c73... >hello.c~3 |
| $ merge hello.c~2 hello.c~1 hello.c~3 |
| ------------------------------------------------ |
| |
| This would leave the merge result in `hello.c~2` file, along |
| with conflict markers if there are conflicts. After verifying |
| the merge result makes sense, you can tell git what the final |
| merge result for this file is by: |
| |
| mv -f hello.c~2 hello.c |
| git-update-index hello.c |
| |
| When a path is in unmerged state, running `git-update-index` for |
| that path tells git to mark the path resolved. |
| |
| The above is the description of a git merge at the lowest level, |
| to help you understand what conceptually happens under the hood. |
| In practice, nobody, not even git itself, uses three `git-cat-file` |
| for this. There is `git-merge-index` program that extracts the |
| stages to temporary files and calls a "merge" script on it: |
| |
| git-merge-index git-merge-one-file hello.c |
| |
| and that is what higher level `git resolve` is implemented with. |