Update the documentation about text=auto:
text=auto now follows the core.autocrlf handling when files are not
normalized in the repository.
For a cross platform project recommend the usage of attributes for
line-ending conversions.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The "git -c var[=val] cmd" facility to append a configuration
variable definition at the end of the search order was described in
git(1) manual page, but not in git-config(1), which was more likely
place for people to look for when they ask "can I make a one-shot
override, and if so how?"
* dg/document-git-c-in-git-config-doc:
doc: mention `git -c` in git-config(1)
The man page for `git ls-files --eol` mentions the combination
of text attributes "text=auto eol=lf" or "text=auto eol=crlf" as not
supported yet, but may be in the future.
Now they are supported.
Signed-off-by: Torsten Bögershausen <tboegi@web.de>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Receive-pack feeds its input to either index-pack or
unpack-objects, which will happily accept as many bytes as
a sender is willing to provide. Let's allow an arbitrary
cutoff point where we will stop writing bytes to disk.
Cleaning up what has already been written to disk is a
related problem that is not addressed by this patch.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When receiving a pack-file, it can be useful to abort the
`git unpack-objects`, if the pack-file is too big.
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When receiving a pack-file, it can be useful to abort the
`git index-pack`, if the pack-file is too big.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Christian Couder <chriscool@tuxfamily.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When `--recursive` and `--reference` is given, it is reasonable to
expect that the submodules are created with references to the submodules
of the given alternate for the superproject.
An initial attempt to do this was presented to the mailing list, which
used flags that are passed around ("--super-reference") that instructed
the submodule clone to look for a reference in the submodules of the
referenced superproject. This is not well thought out, as any further
`submodule update` should also respect the initial setup.
When a new submodule is added to the superproject and the alternate
of the superproject does not know about that submodule yet, we rather
error out informing the user instead of being unclear if we did or did
not use a submodules alternate.
To solve this problem introduce new options that store the configuration
for what the user wanted originally.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To reference previous commits people used to put just the
abbreviated SHA-1 into commit messages. This is what has evolved as
a more stable format for referencing commits. So lets document it
for everyone to look-up when needed.
Signed-off-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In a later patch we want to try to create alternates for submodules,
but they might not exist in the referenced superproject. So add a way
to skip the non existing references and report them.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The previous commit adjusted the column alignment for revision
examples which show expansion. Fix the unchanged examples and sort
those that show expansions to the end of the list.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The revisions examples show the revison arguments and the selected
commits, but do not show the intermediate step of the expansion of
the special 'range' notations. Extend the examples, including an
all-parents multi-parent merge commit example.
Sort the examples and fix the alignment for those unaffected
in the next commit.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
For the r1..r2 case, the exclusion of r1, rather than inclusion of r2,
would be the unexpected case in natural language for a simple linear
development, i.e. start..end excludes start.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Do not self-define `reachable`, which can lead to misunderstanding.
Instead define `reachability` explictly.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The prior sentence has too many clauses for easy parsing.
Replace 'the latter case' with a direct quote.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
While there, also break out the other shorthand notations and
add a title for the revision range summary (which also appears
in git-rev-parse, so keep it mixed case).
We do not quote the notation within the headings as the asciidoc ->
docbook -> groff man viewer toolchain, particularly the docbook-groff
step, does not cope with two font changes, failing to return the heading
font to bold after the quotation of the notation.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
This commit message is long and has lots of background and
numbers. The summary is: the current default of 250 doesn't
save much space, and costs CPU. It's not a good tradeoff.
Read on for details.
The "--aggressive" flag to git-gc does three things:
1. use "-f" to throw out existing deltas and recompute from
scratch
2. use "--window=250" to look harder for deltas
3. use "--depth=250" to make longer delta chains
Items (1) and (2) are good matches for an "aggressive"
repack. They ask the repack to do more computation work in
the hopes of getting a better pack. You pay the costs during
the repack, and other operations see only the benefit.
Item (3) is not so clear. Allowing longer chains means fewer
restrictions on the deltas, which means potentially finding
better ones and saving some space. But it also means that
operations which access the deltas have to follow longer
chains, which affects their performance. So it's a tradeoff,
and it's not clear that the tradeoff is even a good one.
The existing "250" numbers for "--aggressive" come
originally from this thread:
http://public-inbox.org/git/alpine.LFD.0.9999.0712060803430.13796@woody.linux-foundation.org/
where Linus says:
So when I said "--depth=250 --window=250", I chose those
numbers more as an example of extremely aggressive
packing, and I'm not at all sure that the end result is
necessarily wonderfully usable. It's going to save disk
space (and network bandwidth - the delta's will be re-used
for the network protocol too!), but there are definitely
downsides too, and using long delta chains may
simply not be worth it in practice.
There are some numbers in that thread, but they're mostly
focused on the improved window size, and measure the
improvement from --depth=250 and --window=250 together.
E.g.:
http://public-inbox.org/git/9e4733910712062006l651571f3w7f76ce64c6650dff@mail.gmail.com/
talks about the improved run-time of "git-blame", which
comes from the reduced pack size. But most of that reduction
is coming from --window=250, whereas most of the extra costs
come from --depth=250. There's a link in that thread showing
that increasing the depth beyond 50 doesn't seem to help
much with the size:
https://vcscompare.blogspot.com/2008/06/git-repack-parameters.html
but again, no discussion of the timing impact.
In an earlier thread from Ted Ts'o which discussed setting
the non-aggressive default (from 10 to 50):
http://public-inbox.org/git/20070509134958.GA21489%40thunk.org/
we have more numbers, with the conclusion that going past 50
does not help size much, and hurts the speed of normal
operations.
So from that, we might guess that 50 is actually a sweet
spot, even for aggressive, if we interpret aggressive to
"spend time now to make a better pack". It is not clear that
"--depth=250" is actually a better pack. It may be slightly
_smaller_, but it carries a run-time penalty.
Here are some more recent timings I did to verify that. They
show three things:
- the size of the resulting pack (so disk saved to store,
bandwidth saved on clones/fetches)
- the cost of "rev-list --objects --all", which shows the
effect of the delta chains on trees (commits typically
don't delta, and the command doesn't touch the blobs at
all)
- the cost of "log -Sfoo", which will additionally access
each blob
All cases were repacked with "git repack -adf --depth=$d
--window=250" (so basically, what would happen if we tweaked
the "gc --aggressive" default depth).
The timings are all wall-clock best-of-3. The machine itself
has plenty of RAM compared to the repositories (which is
probably typical of most workstations these days), so we're
really measuring CPU usage, as the whole thing will be in
disk cache after the first run.
The core.deltaBaseCacheLimit is at its default of 96MiB.
It's possible that tweaking it would have some impact on the
tests, as some of them (especially "log -S" on a large repo)
are likely to overflow that. But bumping that carries a
run-time memory cost, so for these tests, I focused on what
we could do just with the on-disk pack tradeoffs.
Each test is done for four depths: 250 (the current value),
50 (the current default that tested well previously), 100
(to show something on the larger side, which previous tests
showed was not a good tradeoff), and 10 (the very old
default, which previous tests showed was worse than 50).
Here are the numbers for linux.git:
depth | size | % | rev-list | % | log -Sfoo | %
-------+-------+-------+----------+--------+-----------+-------
250 | 967MB | n/a | 48.159s | n/a | 378.088 | n/a
100 | 971MB | +0.4% | 41.471s | -13.9% | 342.060 | -9.5%
50 | 979MB | +1.2% | 37.778s | -21.6% | 311.040s | -17.7%
10 | 1.1GB | +6.6% | 32.518s | -32.5% | 279.890s | -25.9%
and for git.git:
depth | size | % | rev-list | % | log -Sfoo | %
-------+-------+-------+----------+--------+-----------+-------
250 | 48MB | n/a | 2.215s | n/a | 20.922s | n/a
100 | 49MB | +0.5% | 2.140s | -3.4% | 17.736s | -15.2%
50 | 49MB | +1.7% | 2.099s | -5.2% | 15.418s | -26.3%
10 | 53MB | +9.3% | 2.001s | -9.7% | 12.677s | -39.4%
You can see that that the CPU savings for regular operations improves as we
decrease the depth. The savings are less for "rev-list" on a smaller repository
than they are for blob-accessing operations, or even rev-list on a larger
repository. This may mean that a larger delta cache would help (though setting
core.deltaBaseCacheLimit by itself doesn't).
But we can also see that the space savings are not that great as the depth goes
higher. Saving 5-10% between 10 and 50 is probably worth the CPU tradeoff.
Saving 1% to go from 50 to 100, or another 0.5% to go from 100 to 250 is
probably not.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Update status manpage to include information about
porcelain v2 format.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Hostetler <jeffhost@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git format-patch" learned format.from configuration variable to
specify the default settings for its "--from" option.
* jt/format-patch-from-config:
format-patch: format.from gives the default for --from
"git push --force-with-lease" already had enough logic to allow
ensuring that such a push results in creation of a ref (i.e. the
receiving end did not have another push from sideways that would be
discarded by our force-pushing), but didn't expose this possibility
to the users. It does so now.
* jk/push-force-with-lease-creation:
t5533: make it pass on case-sensitive filesystems
push: allow pushing new branches with --force-with-lease
push: add shorthand for --force-with-lease branch creation
Documentation/git-push: fix placeholder formatting
A minor documentation update.
This was split out from a stalled jh/clean-smudge-annex topic
before discarding it.
* jh/clean-smudge-f-doc:
clarify %f documentation
The API documentation for hashmap was unclear if hashmap_entry
can be safely discarded without any other consideration. State
that it is safe to do so.
* jc/hashmap-doc-init:
hashmap: clarify that hashmap_entry can safely be discarded
The API documentation for hashmap was unclear if hashmap_entry
can be safely discarded without any other consideration. State
that it is safe to do so.
* jc/hashmap-doc-init:
hashmap: clarify that hashmap_entry can safely be discarded
The reflog output format is documented better, and a new format
--date=unix to report the seconds-since-epoch (without timezone)
has been added.
* jk/reflog-date:
date: clarify --date=raw description
date: add "unix" format
date: document and test "raw-local" mode
doc/pretty-formats: explain shortening of %gd
doc/pretty-formats: describe index/time formats for %gd
doc/rev-list-options: explain "-g" output formats
doc/rev-list-options: clarify "commit@{Nth}" for "-g" option
