Re: first impressions to git

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Sep 18, 2005, 22:09 UTC
Message-ID: <7vk6he110j.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20050918211855.GA1463@schottelius.org>

Nico -telmich- Schottelius <nico-linux-git@schottelius.org> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

> [22:29] hydrogenium:git-core-0.99.6% ls git-update-*
> git-update-cache  git-update-server-info
>
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/tutorial.html (v0.99.5, Aug 2005):
>
> "The first step is trivial: when you want to tell git about any changes to your working tree, you use the git-update-index program."

This is my fault. The on-line documentation on kernel.org always follow what is in the "master" branch that is a bit ahead of the last released version.

Also, the version number on each of the page does not necessarily match the version of the software -- it gets updated to reflect the version of the last update of the doc, so the pages reachable from git.html show different versions.

But still when you saw us talk about "git-update-index" and saw you only have "git-update-cache", you could have looked at git.html documentation page and find out that it says the command git-update-index was previously known as git-update-cache.

Show 9 quoted lines

>> .git/description is actually a gitweb feature, not a core git feature. 
>> You'd only set it up for public repositories that you want to describe.
>
> That does not fit to what I see here:
>
> [22:46] hydrogenium:gpm% git-init-db 
> defaulting to local storage area
> [22:46] hydrogenium:gpm% ls .git 
> branches  description  HEAD  hooks  info  objects  refs  remotes

You two are both right. Git itself does not look at description, but just as a convenience it shows where to put that file if you ever want to publish it from its built-in templates.

>> ".git/remotes" is the current one; ".git/branches" is obsolete.
>
> Will .git/branches be complety removed later?

That is what the word deprecated usually means. For now both are supported.