The "git push" documentation made the "--repo=<there>" option
easily misunderstood.
* mg/push-repo-option-doc:
git-push.txt: document the behavior of --repo
"git push" has been taught a "--atomic" option that makes push to
update more than one ref an "all-or-none" affair.
* sb/atomic-push:
Document receive.advertiseatomic
t5543-atomic-push.sh: add basic tests for atomic pushes
push.c: add an --atomic argument
send-pack.c: add --atomic command line argument
send-pack: rename ref_update_to_be_sent to check_to_send_update
receive-pack.c: negotiate atomic push support
receive-pack.c: add execute_commands_atomic function
receive-pack.c: move transaction handling in a central place
receive-pack.c: move iterating over all commands outside execute_commands
receive-pack.c: die instead of error in case of possible future bug
receive-pack.c: shorten the execute_commands loop over all commands
As per the code, the --repo <repo> option is equivalent to the
<repo> argument to 'git push', but somehow it was documented as
something that is more than that. [It exists for historical
reasons, back from the time when options had to come before
arguments.]
Say so. [But not that.]
Signed-off-by: Michael J Gruber <git@drmicha.warpmail.net>
Helped-by: Eric Sunshine <sunshine@sunshineco.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Add a command line argument to the git push command to request atomic
pushes.
Signed-off-by: Ronnie Sahlberg <sahlberg@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller <sbeller@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The git-push manual page used "gitlink" in one place instead of
"linkgit". Fix this so the link renders correctly.
Noticed-by: Dan Allen <dan.j.allen@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: brian m. carlson <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git help everyday" to show the Everyday Git document.
* po/everyday-doc:
doc: add 'everyday' to 'git help'
doc: Makefile regularise OBSOLETE_HTML list building
doc: modernise everyday.txt wording and format in man page style
The "Everyday GIT With 20 Commands Or So" is not accessible via the
Git help system. Move everyday.txt to giteveryday.txt so that "git
help everyday" works, and create a new placeholder file everyday.html
to refer people who follow existing URLs to the updated location.
giteveryday.txt now formats well with AsciiDoc as a man page and
refreshed content to a more command modern style.
Add 'everyday' to the help --guides list and update git(1) and 5
other links to giteveryday.
Signed-off-by: Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee.org>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Allow "git push" request to be signed, so that it can be verified and
audited, using the GPG signature of the person who pushed, that the
tips of branches at a public repository really point the commits
the pusher wanted to, without having to "trust" the server.
* jc/push-cert: (24 commits)
receive-pack::hmac_sha1(): copy the entire SHA-1 hash out
signed push: allow stale nonce in stateless mode
signed push: teach smart-HTTP to pass "git push --signed" around
signed push: fortify against replay attacks
signed push: add "pushee" header to push certificate
signed push: remove duplicated protocol info
send-pack: send feature request on push-cert packet
receive-pack: GPG-validate push certificates
push: the beginning of "git push --signed"
pack-protocol doc: typofix for PKT-LINE
gpg-interface: move parse_signature() to where it should be
gpg-interface: move parse_gpg_output() to where it should be
send-pack: clarify that cmds_sent is a boolean
send-pack: refactor inspecting and resetting status and sending commands
send-pack: rename "new_refs" to "need_pack_data"
receive-pack: factor out capability string generation
send-pack: factor out capability string generation
send-pack: always send capabilities
send-pack: refactor decision to send update per ref
send-pack: move REF_STATUS_REJECT_NODELETE logic a bit higher
...
While signed tags and commits assert that the objects thusly signed
came from you, who signed these objects, there is not a good way to
assert that you wanted to have a particular object at the tip of a
particular branch. My signing v2.0.1 tag only means I want to call
the version v2.0.1, and it does not mean I want to push it out to my
'master' branch---it is likely that I only want it in 'maint', so
the signature on the object alone is insufficient.
The only assurance to you that 'maint' points at what I wanted to
place there comes from your trust on the hosting site and my
authentication with it, which cannot easily audited later.
Introduce a mechanism that allows you to sign a "push certificate"
(for the lack of better name) every time you push, asserting that
what object you are pushing to update which ref that used to point
at what other object. Think of it as a cryptographic protection for
ref updates, similar to signed tags/commits but working on an
orthogonal axis.
The basic flow based on this mechanism goes like this:
1. You push out your work with "git push --signed".
2. The sending side learns where the remote refs are as usual,
together with what protocol extension the receiving end
supports. If the receiving end does not advertise the protocol
extension "push-cert", an attempt to "git push --signed" fails.
Otherwise, a text file, that looks like the following, is
prepared in core:
certificate version 0.1
pusher Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> 1315427886 -0700
7339ca65... 21580ecb... refs/heads/master
3793ac56... 12850bec... refs/heads/next
The file begins with a few header lines, which may grow as we
gain more experience. The 'pusher' header records the name of
the signer (the value of user.signingkey configuration variable,
falling back to GIT_COMMITTER_{NAME|EMAIL}) and the time of the
certificate generation. After the header, a blank line follows,
followed by a copy of the protocol message lines.
Each line shows the old and the new object name at the tip of
the ref this push tries to update, in the way identical to how
the underlying "git push" protocol exchange tells the ref
updates to the receiving end (by recording the "old" object
name, the push certificate also protects against replaying). It
is expected that new command packet types other than the
old-new-refname kind will be included in push certificate in the
same way as would appear in the plain vanilla command packets in
unsigned pushes.
The user then is asked to sign this push certificate using GPG,
formatted in a way similar to how signed tag objects are signed,
and the result is sent to the other side (i.e. receive-pack).
In the protocol exchange, this step comes immediately before the
sender tells what the result of the push should be, which in
turn comes before it sends the pack data.
3. When the receiving end sees a push certificate, the certificate
is written out as a blob. The pre-receive hook can learn about
the certificate by checking GIT_PUSH_CERT environment variable,
which, if present, tells the object name of this blob, and make
the decision to allow or reject this push. Additionally, the
post-receive hook can also look at the certificate, which may be
a good place to log all the received certificates for later
audits.
Because a push certificate carry the same information as the usual
command packets in the protocol exchange, we can omit the latter
when a push certificate is in use and reduce the protocol overhead.
This however is not included in this patch to make it easier to
review (in other words, the series at this step should never be
released without the remainder of the series, as it implements an
interim protocol that will be incompatible with the final one).
As such, the documentation update for the protocol is left out of
this step.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Eradicate mistaken use of "nor" (that is, essentially "nor" used
not in "neither A nor B" ;-)) from in-code comments, command output
strings, and documentations.
* jl/nor-or-nand-and:
code and test: fix misuses of "nor"
comments: fix misuses of "nor"
contrib: fix misuses of "nor"
Documentation: fix misuses of "nor"
Since f2690487 (fetch: opportunistically update tracking refs,
2013-05-11), we stopped taking a non-storing refspec given on the
command line of "git fetch" literally, and instead started mapping
it via remote.$name.fetch refspecs. This allows
$ git fetch origin master
from the 'origin' repository, which is configured with
[remote "origin"]
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/origin/*
to update refs/remotes/origin/master with the result, as if the
command line were
$ git fetch origin +master:refs/remotes/origin/master
to reduce surprises and improve usability. Before that change, a
refspec on the command line without a colon was only to fetch the
history and leave the result in FETCH_HEAD, without updating the
remote-tracking branches.
When you are simulating a fetch from you by your mothership with a
push by you into your mothership, instead of having:
[remote "satellite"]
fetch = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/satellite/*
on the mothership repository and running:
mothership$ git fetch satellite
you would have:
[remote "mothership"]
push = +refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/satellite/*
on your satellite machine, and run:
satellite$ git push mothership
Because we so far did not make the corresponding change to the push
side, this command:
satellite$ git push mothership master
does _not_ allow you on the satellite to only push 'master' out but
still to the usual destination (i.e. refs/remotes/satellite/master).
Implement the logic to map an unqualified refspec given on the
command line via the remote.$name.push refspec. This will bring a
bit more symmetry between "fetch" and "push".
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We liberally use "committish" and "commit-ish" (and "treeish" and
"tree-ish"); as these are non-words, let's unify these terms to
their dashed form. More importantly, clarify the documentation on
object peeling using these terms.
* rh/ishes-doc:
glossary: fix and clarify the definition of 'ref'
revisions.txt: fix and clarify <rev>^{<type>}
glossary: more precise definition of tree-ish (a.k.a. treeish)
use 'commit-ish' instead of 'committish'
use 'tree-ish' instead of 'treeish'
glossary: define commit-ish (a.k.a. committish)
glossary: mention 'treeish' as an alternative to 'tree-ish'
Replace 'committish' in documentation and comments with 'commit-ish'
to match gitglossary(7) and to be consistent with 'tree-ish'.
The only remaining instances of 'committish' are:
* variable, function, and macro names
* "(also committish)" in the definition of commit-ish in
gitglossary[7]
Signed-off-by: Richard Hansen <rhansen@bbn.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Update "git push" and "git send-pack" to parse this commnd line
option.
The intended sematics is:
* "--force-with-lease" alone, without specifying the details, will
protect _all_ remote refs that are going to be updated by
requiring their current value to be the same as some reasonable
default, unless otherwise specified;
* "--force-with-lease=refname", without specifying the expected
value, will protect that refname, if it is going to be updated,
by requiring its current value to be the same as some reasonable
default.
* "--force-with-lease=refname:value" will protect that refname, if
it is going to be updated, by requiring its current value to be
the same as the specified value; and
* "--no-force-with-lease" will cancel all the previous --force-with-lease on the
command line.
For now, "some reasonable default" is tentatively defined as "the
value of the remote-tracking branch we have for the ref of the
remote being updated", and it is an error if we do not have such a
remote-tracking branch. But this is known to be fragile, its use is
not yet recommended, and hopefully we will find more reasonable
default as we gain experience with this feature. The manual marks
the feature as experimental unless the expected value is specified
explicitly for this reason.
Because the command line options are parsed _before_ we know which
remote we are pushing to, there needs further processing to the
parsed data after we instantiate the transport object to:
* expand "refname" given by the user to a full refname to be
matched with the list of "struct ref" used in match_push_refs()
and set_ref_status_for_push(); and
* learning the actual local ref that is the remote-tracking branch
for the specified remote ref.
Further, some processing need to be deferred until we find the set
of remote refs and match_push_refs() returns in order to find the
ones that need to be checked after explicit ones have been processed
for "--force-with-lease" (no specific details).
These post-processing will be the topic of the next patch.
This option was originally called "cas" (for "compare and swap"),
the name which nobody liked because it was too technical. The
second attempt called it "lockref" (because it is conceptually like
pushing after taking a lock) but the word "lock" was hated because
it implied that it may reject push by others, which is not the way
this option works. This round calls it "force-with-lease". You
assume you took the lease on the ref when you fetched to decide what
the rebased history should be, and you can push back only if the
lease has not been broken.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We promised to change the behaviour of lazy "git push [there]" that
does not say what to push on the command line from "matching" to
"simple" in Git 2.0.
This finally flips that bit.
Helped-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The behavior of "git push --force" is rather clear when it updates only
one remote ref, but running it when pushing several branches can really
be dangerous. Warn the users a bit more and give them the alternative to
push only one branch.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
ec55559 (push: Add support for pre-push hooks, 2013-01-13) forgot to
add a note to git-push(1) about the new --no-verify option.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@inf.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
White-spaces, missing braces, standardize --[no-]foo.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Clarify in the documentation "what" gets pushed to "where" when the
command line to "git push" does not say these explicitly.
* jc/maint-push-refspec-default-doc:
Documentation/git-push: clarify the description of defaults
We describe what gets pushed by default when the command line does
not give any <refspec> under the bullet point of <refspec>.
It is a bit unfriendly to expect users to read on <refspec> when
they are not giving any in the first place. "What gets pushed" is
determined by taking many factors (<refspec> argument being only one
of them) into account, and is a property of the entire command, not
an individual argument. Also we do not describe "Where the push
goes" when the command line does not say.
Give the description on "what gets pushed to where" upfront before
explaining individual arguments and options.
Also update the description of <refspec> to say what it is, what it
is used for, before explaining what shape it takes.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The new option "--follow-tags" tells "git push" to push annotated
tags that are missing from the other side and that can be reached by
the history that is otherwise pushed out.
For example, if you are using the "simple", "current", or "upstream"
push, you would ordinarily push the history leading to the commit at
your current HEAD and nothing else. With this option, you would
also push all annotated tags that can be reached from that commit to
the other side.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Require "-f" for push to update a tag, even if it is a fast-forward.
* cr/push-force-tag-update:
push: allow already-exists advice to be disabled
push: rename config variable for more general use
push: cleanup push rules comment
push: clarify rejection of update to non-commit-ish
push: require force for annotated tags
push: require force for refs under refs/tags/
push: flag updates that require force
push: keep track of "update" state separately
push: add advice for rejected tag reference
push: return reject reasons as a bitset
Do not allow fast-forwarding of references that point to a tag object.
Updating from a tag is potentially destructive since it would likely
leave the tag dangling. Disallowing updates to a tag also makes sense
semantically and is consistent with the behavior of lightweight tags.
Signed-off-by: Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
References are allowed to update from one commit-ish to another if the
former is an ancestor of the latter. This behavior is oriented to
branches which are expected to move with commits. Tag references are
expected to be static in a repository, though, thus an update to
something under refs/tags/ should be rejected unless the update is
forced.
Signed-off-by: Chris Rorvick <chris@rorvick.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The context of the example to push into refs/remotes/satellite/
hierarchy of the other repository needs to be spelled out explicitly
for the value of this example to be fully appreciated. Make it so.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The current version contains the sentence:
Further suppose that the other person already pushed changes leading to
A back to the original repository you two obtained the original commit
X.
which doesn't parse for me; I've changed it to
Further suppose that the other person already pushed changes leading to
A back to the original repository from which you two obtained the
original commit X.
Signed-off-by: Mark Szepieniec <mszepien@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
We long ago hyphenated "remote-tracking branch"; this
catches some new instances added since then.
* mm/maint-doc-remote-tracking:
Documentation: remote tracking branch -> remote-tracking branch
This change was already done by 0e615b252f (Matthieu Moy, Tue Nov 2
2010, Replace "remote tracking" with "remote-tracking"), but new
instances of remote tracking (without dash) were introduced in the
meantime.
Signed-off-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@imag.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
It already is listed in the "git config" documentation, but people
interested in pushing would first look at "git push" documentation.
Noticed-by: David Glasser
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@grenoble-inp.fr>
Fixed-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Our documentation was written for an ancient version of AsciiDoc,
making the source not very readable.
By Jeff King
* jk/doc-asciidoc-inline-literal:
docs: stop using asciidoc no-inline-literal
In asciidoc 7, backticks like `foo` produced a typographic
effect, but did not otherwise affect the syntax. In asciidoc
8, backticks introduce an "inline literal" inside which markup
is not interpreted. To keep compatibility with existing
documents, asciidoc 8 has a "no-inline-literal" attribute to
keep the old behavior. We enabled this so that the
documentation could be built on either version.
It has been several years now, and asciidoc 7 is no longer
in wide use. We can now decide whether or not we want
inline literals on their own merits, which are:
1. The source is much easier to read when the literal
contains punctuation. You can use `master~1` instead
of `master{tilde}1`.
2. They are less error-prone. Because of point (1), we
tend to make mistakes and forget the extra layer of
quoting.
This patch removes the no-inline-literal attribute from the
Makefile and converts every use of backticks in the
documentation to an inline literal (they must be cleaned up,
or the example above would literally show "{tilde}" in the
output).
Problematic sites were found by grepping for '`.*[{\\]' and
examined and fixed manually. The results were then verified
by comparing the output of "html2text" on the set of
generated html pages. Doing so revealed that in addition to
making the source more readable, this patch fixes several
formatting bugs:
- HTML rendering used the ellipsis character instead of
literal "..." in code examples (like "git log A...B")
- some code examples used the right-arrow character
instead of '->' because they failed to quote
- api-config.txt did not quote tilde, and the resulting
HTML contained a bogus snippet like:
<tt><sub></tt> foo <tt></sub>bar</tt>
which caused some parsers to choke and omit whole
sections of the page.
- git-commit.txt confused ``foo`` (backticks inside a
literal) with ``foo'' (matched double-quotes)
- mentions of `A U Thor <author@example.com>` used to
erroneously auto-generate a mailto footnote for
author@example.com
- the description of --word-diff=plain incorrectly showed
the output as "[-removed-] and {added}", not "{+added+}".
- using "prime" notation like:
commit `C` and its replacement `C'`
confused asciidoc into thinking that everything between
the first backtick and the final apostrophe were meant
to be inside matched quotes
- asciidoc got confused by the escaping of some of our
asterisks. In particular,
`credential.\*` and `credential.<url>.\*`
properly escaped the asterisk in the first case, but
literally passed through the backslash in the second
case.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
"git push --recurse-submodules" learns to optionally look into the
histories of submodules bound to the superproject and push them out.
By Heiko Voigt
* hv/submodule-recurse-push:
push: teach --recurse-submodules the on-demand option
Refactor submodule push check to use string list instead of integer
Teach revision walking machinery to walk multiple times sequencially
When using this option git will search for all submodules that
have changed in the revisions to be send. It will then try to
push the currently checked out branch of each submodule.
This helps when a user has finished working on a change which
involves submodules and just wants to push everything in one go.
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Gustafsson <iveqy@iveqy.com>
Mentored-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Mentored-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When pushing groups of refs to a remote, there is no simple way to remove
old refs that still exist at the remote that is no longer updated from us.
This will allow us to remove such refs from the remote.
With this change, running this command
$ git push --prune remote refs/heads/*:refs/remotes/laptop/*
removes refs/remotes/laptop/foo from the remote if we do not have branch
"foo" locally anymore.
Signed-off-by: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
When working with submodules it is easy to forget to push a
submodule to the server but pushing a super-project that
contains a commit for that submodule. The result is that the
superproject points at a submodule commit that is not available
on the server.
This adds the option --recurse-submodules=check to push. When
using this option git will check that all submodule commits that
are about to be pushed are present on a remote of the submodule.
To be able to use a combined diff, disabling a diff callback has
been removed from combined-diff.c.
Signed-off-by: Fredrik Gustafsson <iveqy@iveqy.com>
Mentored-by: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Mentored-by: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Many examples of git command invocation are given in asciidoc listing
blocks, which makes them monospaced and avoids further interpretation of
special characters. Some manpages make a list of examples, like:
git foo::
Run git foo.
git foo -q::
Use the "-q" option.
to quickly show many variants. However, they can sometimes be hard to
read, because they are shown in a proportional-width font (so, for
example, seeing the difference between "-- foo" and "--foo" can be
difficult).
This patch puts all such examples into backticks, which gives the
equivalent formatting to a listing block (i.e., monospaced and without
character interpretation).
As a bonus, this also fixes an example in the git-push manpage, in which
"git push origin :::" was accidentally considered a newly-indented list,
and not a list item with "git push origin :" in it.
Signed-off-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The point of these sections is generally to:
1. Give credit where it is due.
2. Give the reader an idea of where to ask questions or
file bug reports.
But they don't do a good job of either case. For (1), they
are out of date and incomplete. A much more accurate answer
can be gotten through shortlog or blame. For (2), the
correct contact point is generally git@vger, and even if you
wanted to cc the contact point, the out-of-date and
incomplete fields mean you're likely sending to somebody
useless.
So let's drop the fields entirely from all manpages except
git(1) itself. We already point people to the mailing list
for bug reports there, and we can update the Authors section
to give credit to the major contributors and point to
shortlog and blame for more information.
Each page has a "This is part of git" footer, so people can
follow that to the main git manpage.
Fix references to gitrevisions(1) in the manual pages and HTML
documentation.
In practice, this will not matter much unless someone tries to use a
hard copy of the git reference manual.
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Junio C Hamano
Michael J Gruber
Ronnie Sahlberg
brian m. carlson
Philip Oakley
Tony Finch
Justin Lebar
Richard Hansen
Matthieu Moy
Thomas Rast
Felipe Contreras
Thomas Ackermann
Chris Rorvick
Mark Szepieniec
Jeff King
Ramkumar Ramachandra
Heiko Voigt
Fredrik Gustafsson
Jonathan Nieder