# First stab at glossary 17 messages from 2005-08-17 to 2005-09-04. Participants: Johannes Schindelin, Daniel Barkalow, Junio C Hamano, Tim Ottinger. Thread: https://gitlist.dev/t/1556 ## Johannes Schindelin, 2005-08-17 14:56 Subject: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508171655250.13502%40wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de ``` Hi, long, long time. Here´s my first stab at the glossary, attached the alphabetically sorted, asciidoc marked up txt file (Comments? Suggestions? Pizzas?): object:: The unit of storage in GIT. It is uniquely identified by the SHA1 of its contents. Consequently, an object can not be changed. SHA1:: A 20-byte sequence (or 41-byte file containing the hex representation and a newline). It is calculated from the contents of an object by the Secure Hash Algorithm 1. object database:: Stores a set of "objects", and an individial object is identified by its SHA1 (its ref). The objects are either stored as single files, or live inside of packs. object name:: Synonym for SHA1. blob object:: Untyped object, i.e. the contents of a file. tree object:: An object containing a list of blob and/or tree objects. (A tree usually corresponds to a directory without subdirectories). tree:: Either a working tree, or a tree object together with the dependent blob and tree objects (i.e. a stored representation of a working tree). cache:: A collection of files whose contents are stored as objects. The cache is a stored version of your working tree. Well, can also contain a second, and even a third version of a working tree, which are used when merging. cache entry:: The information regarding a particular file, stored in the index. A cache entry can be unmerged, if a merge was started, but not yet finished (i.e. if the cache contains multiple versions of that file). index:: Contains information about the cache contents, in particular timestamps and mode flags ("stat information") for the files stored in the cache. An unmerged index is an index which contains unmerged cache entries. working tree:: The set of files and directories currently being worked on. Think "ls -laR" directory:: The list you get with "ls" :-) checkout:: The action of updating the working tree to a revision which was stored in the object database. revision:: A particular state of files and directories which was stored in the object database. It is referenced by a commit object. commit:: The action of storing the current state of the cache in the object database. The result is a revision. commit object:: An object which contains the information about a particular revision, such as parents, committer, author, date and the tree object which corresponds to the top directory of the stored revision. changeset:: BitKeeper/cvsps speak for "commit". Since git does not store changes, but states, it really does not make sense to use the term "changesets" with git. ent:: Favorite synonym to "tree-ish" by some total geeks. clean:: A working tree is clean, if it corresponds to the revision referenced by the current head. dirty:: A working tree is said to be dirty if it contains modifications which have not been committed to the current branch. head:: The top of a branch. It contains a ref to the corresponding commit object. branch:: A non-cyclical graph of revisions, i.e. the complete history of a particular revision, which does not (yet) have children, which is called the branch head. The branch heads are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. ref:: A 40-byte hex representation of a SHA1 pointing to a particular object. These are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/. head ref:: A ref pointing to a head. Often, this is abbreviated to "head". Head refs are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. tree-ish:: A ref pointing to either a commit object, a tree object, or a tag object pointing to a commit or tree object. tag object:: An object containing a ref pointing to another object. It can contain a (PGP) signature, in which case it is called "signed tag object". tag:: A ref pointing to a tag or commit object. In contrast to a head, a tag is not changed by a commit. Tags (not tag objects) are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/tags/. A git tag has nothing to do with a Lisp tag (which is called object type in git's context). merge:: To merge branches means to try to accumulate the changes since a common ancestor and apply them to the first branch. An automatic merge uses heuristics to accomplish that. Evidently, an automatic merge can fail. resolve:: The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge left behind. repository:: A collection of refs together with an object database containing all objects, which are reachable from the refs. A repository can share an object database with other repositories. alternate object database:: Via the alternates mechanism, a repository can inherit part of its object database from another object database, which is called "alternate". reachable:: An object is reachable from a ref/commit/tree/tag, if there is a chain leading from the latter to the former. chain:: A list of objects, where each object in the list contains a reference to its successor (for example, the successor of a commit could be one of its parents). parent:: A commit object contains a (possibly empty) list of the logical predecessor(s) in the line of development, i.e. its parents. fetch:: Fetching a branch means to get the branch's head ref from a remote repository, to find out which objects are missing from the local object database, and to get them, too. pull:: Pulling a branch means to fetch it and merge it. push:: Pushing a branch means to get the branch's head ref from a remote repository, find out if it is an ancestor to the branch's local head ref is a direct, and in that case, putting all objects, which are reachable from the local head ref, and which are missing from the remote repository, into the remote object database, and updating the remote head ref. If the remote head is not an ancestor to the local head, the push fails. pack:: A set of objects which have been compressed into one file (to save space or to transmit them efficiently). pack index:: Contains offsets into a pack, so the pack can be used instead of the unpacked objects. plumbing:: Cute name for core git. porcelain:: Cute name for programs and program suites depending on core git, presenting a high level access to core git. Porcelains expose more of a SCM interface than the plumbing. object type: One of the identifiers "commit","tree","tag" and "blob" describing the type of an object. SCM:: Source code management (tool). dircache:: You are *waaaaay* behind. GIT Glossary ============ Aug 2005 [[ref_SCM]]SCM:: Source code management (tool). [[ref_SHA1]]SHA1:: A 20-byte sequence (or 41-byte file containing the hex representation and a newline). It is calculated from the contents of an <> by the Secure Hash Algorithm 1. [[ref_alternate_object_database]]alternate object database:: Via the alternates mechanism, a <> can inherit part of its <> from another <>, which is called "alternate". [[ref_blob_object]]blob object:: Untyped <>, i.e. the contents of a file. [[ref_branch]]branch:: A non-cyclical graph of revisions, i.e. the complete history of a particular <>, which does not (yet) have children, which is called the <> <>. The <> heads are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. [[ref_cache]]cache:: A collection of files whose contents are stored as objects. The <> is a stored version of your <>. Well, can also contain a second, and even a third version of a working <>, which are used when merging. [[ref_cache_entry]]cache entry:: The information regarding a particular file, stored in the <>. A <> can be unmerged, if a <> was started, but not yet finished (i.e. if the <> contains multiple versions of that file). [[ref_chain]]chain:: A list of objects, where each <> in the list contains a reference to its successor (for example, the successor of a <> could be one of its parents). [[ref_changeset]]changeset:: BitKeeper/cvsps speak for "<>". Since git does not store changes, but states, it really does not make sense to use the term "changesets" with git. [[ref_checkout]]checkout:: The action of updating the <> to a <> which was stored in the <>. [[ref_clean]]clean:: A <> is <>, if it corresponds to the <> referenced by the current <>. [[ref_commit]]commit:: The action of storing the current state of the <> in the <>. The result is a <>. [[ref_commit_object]]commit object:: An <> which contains the information about a particular <>, such as parents, committer, author, date and the <> which corresponds to the top <> of the stored <>. [[ref_dircache]]dircache:: You are *waaaaay* behind. [[ref_directory]]directory:: The list you get with "ls" :-) [[ref_dirty]]dirty:: A <> is said to be <> if it contains modifications which have not been committed to the current <>. [[ref_ent]]ent:: Favorite synonym to "<>" by some total geeks. [[ref_fetch]]fetch:: Fetching a <> means to get the <>'s <> from a remote <>, to find out which objects are missing from the local <>, and to get them, too. [[ref_head]]head:: The top of a <>. It contains a <> to the corresponding <>. [[ref_head_ref]]head ref:: A <> pointing to a <>. Often, this is abbreviated to "<>". Head refs are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. [[ref_index]]index:: Contains information about the <> contents, in particular timestamps and mode flags ("stat information") for the files stored in the <>. An unmerged <> is an <> which contains unmerged <> entries. [[ref_merge]]merge:: To <> branches means to try to accumulate the changes since a common ancestor and apply them to the first <>. An automatic <> uses heuristics to accomplish that. Evidently, an automatic <> can fail. [[ref_object]]object:: The unit of storage in GIT. It is uniquely identified by the <> of its contents. Consequently, an <> can not be changed. [[ref_object_database]]object database:: Stores a set of "objects", and an individial <> is identified by its <> (its <>). The objects are either stored as single files, or live inside of packs. [[ref_object_name]]object name:: Synonym for <>. [[ref_pack]]pack:: A set of objects which have been compressed into one file (to save space or to transmit them efficiently). [[ref_pack_index]]pack index:: Contains offsets into a <>, so the <> can be used instead of the unpacked objects. [[ref_parent]]parent:: A <> contains a (possibly empty) list of the logical predecessor(s) in the line of development, i.e. its parents. [[ref_plumbing]]plumbing:: Cute name for core git. [[ref_porcelain]]porcelain:: Cute name for programs and program suites depending on core git, presenting a high level access to core git. Porcelains expose more of a <> interface than the <>. [[ref_pull]]pull:: Pulling a <> means to <> it and <> it. [[ref_push]]push:: Pushing a <> means to get the <>'s <> from a remote <>, find out if it is an ancestor to the <>'s local <> is a direct, and in that case, putting all objects, which are <> from the local <>, and which are missing from the remote <>, into the remote <>, and updating the remote <>. If the remote <> is not an ancestor to the local <>, the <> fails. [[ref_reachable]]reachable:: An <> is <> from a <>/<>/<>/<>, if there is a <> leading from the latter to the former. [[ref_ref]]ref:: A 40-byte hex representation of a <> pointing to a particular <>. These are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/. [[ref_repository]]repository:: A collection of refs together with an <> containing all objects, which are <> from the refs. A <> can share an <> with other repositories. [[ref_resolve]]resolve:: The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic <> left behind. [[ref_revision]]revision:: A particular state of files and directories which was stored in the <>. It is referenced by a <>. [[ref_tag]]tag:: A <> pointing to a <> or <>. In contrast to a <>, a <> is not changed by a <>. Tags (not <> objects) are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/tags/. A git <> has nothing to do with a Lisp <> (which is called <> type in git's context). [[ref_tag_object]]tag object:: An <> containing a <> pointing to another <>. It can contain a (PGP) signature, in which case it is called "signed <>". [[ref_tree]]tree:: Either a <>, or a <> together with the dependent blob and <> objects (i.e. a stored representation of a <>). [[ref_tree_object]]tree object:: An <> containing a list of blob and/or <> objects. (A <> usually corresponds to a <> without subdirectories). [[ref_tree-ish]]tree-ish:: A <> pointing to either a <>, a <>, or a <> pointing to a <> or <>. [[ref_working_tree]]working tree:: The set of files and directories currently being worked on. Think "ls -laR" ``` ## Daniel Barkalow, 2005-08-17 19:13 Subject: Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508171341380.23242%40iabervon.org In-Reply-To: ``` On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > long, long time. Here�s my first stab at the glossary, attached the > alphabetically sorted, asciidoc marked up txt file (Comments? > Suggestions? Pizzas?): > > object:: > The unit of storage in GIT. It is uniquely identified by > the SHA1 of its contents. Consequently, an object can not > be changed. > > SHA1:: > A 20-byte sequence (or 41-byte file containing the hex > representation and a newline). It is calculated from the > contents of an object by the Secure Hash Algorithm 1. It's also often 40-character string (with whatever termination) in places like commit objects, tag objects, command-line arguments, listings, and so forth. > object database:: > Stores a set of "objects", and an individial object is identified > by its SHA1 (its ref). The objects are either stored as single > files, or live inside of packs. > > object name:: > Synonym for SHA1. Have we killed the use of the third term "hash" for this? I'd say that "object name" is the standard term, and "SHA1" is a nickname, if only because "object name" is more descriptive of the particular use of the term. > blob object:: > Untyped object, i.e. the contents of a file. This "i.e." should be "e.g.", since symlink targets are also stored as blobs, and any other bulk data stored by itself would be. (IIRC, Junio has a tagged blob to hold his public key, for example) > tree object:: > An object containing a list of blob and/or tree objects. > (A tree usually corresponds to a directory without > subdirectories). > > tree:: > Either a working tree, or a tree object together with the > dependent blob and tree objects (i.e. a stored representation > of a working tree). > > cache:: > A collection of files whose contents are stored as objects. > The cache is a stored version of your working tree. Well, can > also contain a second, and even a third version of a working > tree, which are used when merging. > > cache entry:: > The information regarding a particular file, stored in the index. > A cache entry can be unmerged, if a merge was started, but not > yet finished (i.e. if the cache contains multiple versions of > that file). > > index:: > Contains information about the cache contents, in particular > timestamps and mode flags ("stat information") for the files > stored in the cache. An unmerged index is an index which contains > unmerged cache entries. I think we might want to entirely kill the "cache" term, and talk only about the "index" and "index entries". Of course, a bunch of the code will have to be renamed to make this completely successful, but we could change the glossary and documentation, and mention "cache" and "cache entry" as old names for "index" and "index entry" respectively. > working tree:: > The set of files and directories currently being worked on. > Think "ls -laR" This is where the data is actually in the filesystem, and you can edit and compile it (as opposed to a tree object or the index, which semantically have the same contents, but aren't presented in the filesystem that way). > directory:: > The list you get with "ls" :-) > > checkout:: > The action of updating the working tree to a revision which was > stored in the object database. Move after "revision"? > revision:: > A particular state of files and directories which was stored in > the object database. It is referenced by a commit object. > > commit:: > The action of storing the current state of the cache in the > object database. The result is a revision. > > commit object:: > An object which contains the information about a particular > revision, such as parents, committer, author, date and the > tree object which corresponds to the top directory of the > stored revision. Move "parent" around here. > changeset:: > BitKeeper/cvsps speak for "commit". Since git does not store > changes, but states, it really does not make sense to use > the term "changesets" with git. > > ent:: > Favorite synonym to "tree-ish" by some total geeks. Move after "tree-ish". > head:: > The top of a branch. It contains a ref to the corresponding > commit object. > > branch:: > A non-cyclical graph of revisions, i.e. the complete history of > a particular revision, which does not (yet) have children, which > is called the branch head. The branch heads are stored in > $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. A branch head might have children, if they're in another branch. (E.g., I pull mainline, make a new branch based on it, and commit a change; the head of mainline is still a branch head, even though it's the parent of my new commit, because my new commit isn't in mainline.) > ref:: > A 40-byte hex representation of a SHA1 pointing to a particular > object. These are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/. > > head ref:: > A ref pointing to a head. Often, this is abbreviated to "head". > Head refs are stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. > > tree-ish:: > A ref pointing to either a commit object, a tree object, or a > tag object pointing to a commit or tree object. > > tag object:: > An object containing a ref pointing to another object. It can > contain a (PGP) signature, in which case it is called "signed > tag object". > > tag:: > A ref pointing to a tag or commit object. In contrast to a head, > a tag is not changed by a commit. Tags (not tag objects) are > stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/tags/. A git tag has nothing to do with > a Lisp tag (which is called object type in git's context). As above, only the head for the branch being committed to is changed by a commit. A tag, not being the head of a branch, is therefore never changed by a commit. > merge:: > To merge branches means to try to accumulate the changes since a > common ancestor and apply them to the first branch. An automatic > merge uses heuristics to accomplish that. Evidently, an automatic > merge can fail. > > resolve:: > The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge > left behind. "Resolve" is also used for the automatic case (e.g., in "git-resolve-script", which goes from having two commits and a message to having a new commit). I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2005-08-17 20:05 Subject: Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508172156090.17234%40wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > SHA1:: > > A 20-byte sequence (or 41-byte file containing the hex > > representation and a newline). It is calculated from the > > contents of an object by the Secure Hash Algorithm 1. > > It's also often 40-character string (with whatever termination) in places > like commit objects, tag objects, command-line arguments, listings, and so > forth. Okay. > > object name:: > > Synonym for SHA1. > > Have we killed the use of the third term "hash" for this? I'd say that > "object name" is the standard term, and "SHA1" is a nickname, if only > because "object name" is more descriptive of the particular use of the > term. Okay for "hash". What is the consensus on "object name" being more standard than "SHA1"? > > blob object:: > > Untyped object, i.e. the contents of a file. > > This "i.e." should be "e.g.", since symlink targets are also stored as > blobs, and any other bulk data stored by itself would be. (IIRC, Junio has > a tagged blob to hold his public key, for example) Agree. > I think we might want to entirely kill the "cache" term, and talk only > about the "index" and "index entries". Of course, a bunch of the code will > have to be renamed to make this completely successful, but we could change > the glossary and documentation, and mention "cache" and "cache entry" as > old names for "index" and "index entry" respectively. For me, "index" is just the file named "index" (holding stat data and a ref for each cache entry). That is why I say an "index" contains "cache entries", not "index entries" (wee, that sounds wrong :-). > > working tree:: > > The set of files and directories currently being worked on. > > Think "ls -laR" > > This is where the data is actually in the filesystem, and you can edit and > compile it (as opposed to a tree object or the index, which semantically > have the same contents, but aren't presented in the filesystem that way). Maybe I was too cautious. Linus very new idea was to think of the lowest level of an SCM as a file system. But I did not want to mention that. Thinking of it again, maybe I should. > > checkout:: > > Move after "revision"? Ultimately, the glossary terms will be sorted alphabetically. If you look at the file attached to my original mail, this is already sorted and marked up using asciidoc. However, I wanted you and the list to understand how I grouped terms. The asciidoc'ed file is generated by a perl script. > Move "parent" around here. See above. > Move after "tree-ish". Ditto. > > branch:: > > A non-cyclical graph of revisions, i.e. the complete history of > > a particular revision, which does not (yet) have children, which > > is called the branch head. The branch heads are stored in > > $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. > > A branch head might have children, if they're in another branch. (E.g., I > pull mainline, make a new branch based on it, and commit a change; the > head of mainline is still a branch head, even though it's the parent of my > new commit, because my new commit isn't in mainline.) Well noted! I'll just delete that part. > > tag:: > > A ref pointing to a tag or commit object. In contrast to a head, > > a tag is not changed by a commit. Tags (not tag objects) are > > stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/tags/. A git tag has nothing to do with > > a Lisp tag (which is called object type in git's context). > > As above, only the head for the branch being committed to is changed by a > commit. A tag, not being the head of a branch, is therefore never changed > by a commit. I tried to say that. > > resolve:: > > The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge > > left behind. > > "Resolve" is also used for the automatic case (e.g., in > "git-resolve-script", which goes from having two commits and a message to > having a new commit). I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. I did not like that naming anyway. In reality, git-resolve-script does not resolve anything, but it merges two revisions, possibly leaving something to resolve. Ciao, Dscho ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-08-17 20:57 Subject: Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <7vwtmks2m1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vwtmks2m1.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: ``` Johannes Schindelin writes: > Okay for "hash". What is the consensus on "object name" being more > standard than "SHA1"? The tutorial uses the term "object name", so does README (implicitly, by saying "All objects are named by their content, which is approximated by the SHA1 hash of the object itself"). I think it is pretty safe to assume the list agrees with this term. > For me, "index" is just the file named "index" (holding stat data and a > ref for each cache entry). That is why I say an "index" contains "cache > entries", not "index entries" (wee, that sounds wrong :-). I think Linus already commented on using "index file" and "index entries" as the canonical terms. It would be a good idea to mention "cache" as a historical synonym in the documentation, so that we do not have to rename the symbols in the code. > Ultimately, the glossary terms will be sorted alphabetically. If you look > at the file attached to my original mail, this is already sorted and > marked up using asciidoc. However, I wanted you and the list to understand > how I grouped terms. The asciidoc'ed file is generated by a perl script. Then we should put the text version under Documentation, along with that script and a Makefile entry to do asciidoc and another to go to html. No rush for the script and Makefile entries, but it would make things easier to manage if we put the text version in the tree soonish. I've pushed out the one from your original "First stab" message. >> > branch:: >> > A non-cyclical graph of revisions, i.e. the complete history of >> > a particular revision, which does not (yet) have children, which >> > is called the branch head. The branch heads are stored in >> > $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. I wonder if there is a math term for a non-cyclical graph that has a single "greater than anything else in the graph" node (but not necessarily a single but possibly more "lesser than anything else in the graph" nodes)? >> > tag:: >> > A ref pointing to a tag or commit object. In contrast to a head, >> > a tag is not changed by a commit. Tags (not tag objects) are >> > stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/tags/. A git tag has nothing to do with >> > a Lisp tag (which is called object type in git's context). I think this is good already, but maybe mention why you would use a tag in a sentence? "Most typically used to mark a particular point in the commit ancestry chain," or something. >> > resolve:: >> > The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge >> > left behind. >> >> "Resolve" is also used for the automatic case (e.g., in >> "git-resolve-script", which goes from having two commits and a message to >> having a new commit). I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. > > I did not like that naming anyway. In reality, git-resolve-script does not > resolve anything, but it merges two revisions, possibly leaving something > to resolve. I am sure this would break people's script, but I am not against renaming git-resolve-script to say git-merge-script. Anyway, thanks for doing this less-fun and not-so-glorious job. ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2005-08-17 21:24 Subject: Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508172314130.17584%40wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: <7vwtmks2m1.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` Hi, On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Johannes Schindelin writes: > > > Okay for "hash". What is the consensus on "object name" being more > > standard than "SHA1"? > > The tutorial uses the term "object name", so does README > (implicitly, by saying "All objects are named by their content, > which is approximated by the SHA1 hash of the object itself"). > I think it is pretty safe to assume the list agrees with this > term. Okay, I'll give in, then. > > > For me, "index" is just the file named "index" (holding stat data and a > > ref for each cache entry). That is why I say an "index" contains "cache > > entries", not "index entries" (wee, that sounds wrong :-). > > I think Linus already commented on using "index file" and "index > entries" as the canonical terms. It would be a good idea to > mention "cache" as a historical synonym in the documentation, so > that we do not have to rename the symbols in the code. > If the king penguin speaketh, the little blue penguin followeth. > > Ultimately, the glossary terms will be sorted alphabetically. If you look > > at the file attached to my original mail, this is already sorted and > > marked up using asciidoc. However, I wanted you and the list to understand > > how I grouped terms. The asciidoc'ed file is generated by a perl script. > > Then we should put the text version under Documentation, along > with that script and a Makefile entry to do asciidoc and another > to go to html. No rush for the script and Makefile entries, but > it would make things easier to manage if we put the text version > in the tree soonish. I've pushed out the one from your original > "First stab" message. Okay. Then I follow the advice of the large and angry Saucer Crunching Monster, and shuffle the entries into a more logical order. > >> > branch:: > >> > A non-cyclical graph of revisions, i.e. the complete history of > >> > a particular revision, which does not (yet) have children, which > >> > is called the branch head. The branch heads are stored in > >> > $GIT_DIR/refs/heads/. > > I wonder if there is a math term for a non-cyclical graph that > has a single "greater than anything else in the graph" node (but > not necessarily a single but possibly more "lesser than anything > else in the graph" nodes)? Yes, there is. Although git itself is an example that there are two "greater than almost anything else in the graph" nodes. Also, let's not be overzealous with our math degrees, okay? :-) > >> > tag:: > >> > A ref pointing to a tag or commit object. In contrast to a head, > >> > a tag is not changed by a commit. Tags (not tag objects) are > >> > stored in $GIT_DIR/refs/tags/. A git tag has nothing to do with > >> > a Lisp tag (which is called object type in git's context). > > I think this is good already, but maybe mention why you would > use a tag in a sentence? "Most typically used to mark a > particular point in the commit ancestry chain," or something. Done. > >> > resolve:: > >> > The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge > >> > left behind. > >> > >> "Resolve" is also used for the automatic case (e.g., in > >> "git-resolve-script", which goes from having two commits and a message to > >> having a new commit). I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. > > > > I did not like that naming anyway. In reality, git-resolve-script does not > > resolve anything, but it merges two revisions, possibly leaving something > > to resolve. > > I am sure this would break people's script, but I am not against > renaming git-resolve-script to say git-merge-script. I do not mind changing the description if the consensus is to keep git-resolve-script. > Anyway, thanks for doing this less-fun and not-so-glorious job. The little blue penguin says: Thanks for all the fish! ``` ## Daniel Barkalow, 2005-08-17 22:09 Subject: Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508171630140.23242%40iabervon.org In-Reply-To: ``` On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > > > object name:: > > > Synonym for SHA1. > > > > Have we killed the use of the third term "hash" for this? I'd say that > > "object name" is the standard term, and "SHA1" is a nickname, if only > > because "object name" is more descriptive of the particular use of the > > term. > > Okay for "hash". I think we only need at most two names for this, so this is more a matter of fixing old usage than documenting it. > > I think we might want to entirely kill the "cache" term, and talk only > > about the "index" and "index entries". Of course, a bunch of the code will > > have to be renamed to make this completely successful, but we could change > > the glossary and documentation, and mention "cache" and "cache entry" as > > old names for "index" and "index entry" respectively. > > For me, "index" is just the file named "index" (holding stat data and a > ref for each cache entry). That is why I say an "index" contains "cache > entries", not "index entries" (wee, that sounds wrong :-). Well, it often contains information not present anywhere else (the status of a merge; the set of files being committed, added, or removed), so it isn't really a cache at all. > > > working tree:: > > > The set of files and directories currently being worked on. > > > Think "ls -laR" > > > > This is where the data is actually in the filesystem, and you can edit and > > compile it (as opposed to a tree object or the index, which semantically > > have the same contents, but aren't presented in the filesystem that way). > > Maybe I was too cautious. Linus very new idea was to think of the lowest > level of an SCM as a file system. But I did not want to mention that. > Thinking of it again, maybe I should. You probably don't need to mention that tree objects and index files can be thought of as filesystems, but you should specify that the working tree really is in the Unix filesystem, in case people have heard of the idea. It should be clear to say 'You can "cd" there and "ls" to list your files.', rather than 'Think "ls -laR"' which makes my think of the output, which is like the output from git-ls-files. > > > checkout:: > > > > Move after "revision"? > > Ultimately, the glossary terms will be sorted alphabetically. If you look > at the file attached to my original mail, this is already sorted and > marked up using asciidoc. However, I wanted you and the list to understand > how I grouped terms. The asciidoc'ed file is generated by a perl script. Ah, okay. > > > resolve:: > > > The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge > > > left behind. > > > > "Resolve" is also used for the automatic case (e.g., in > > "git-resolve-script", which goes from having two commits and a message to > > having a new commit). I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. > > I did not like that naming anyway. In reality, git-resolve-script does not > resolve anything, but it merges two revisions, possibly leaving something > to resolve. Right; I think we should change the name of the script. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* ``` ## Johannes Schindelin, 2005-08-17 22:19 Subject: Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0508180009180.18104%40wgmdd8.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de In-Reply-To: ``` Hi, On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > > [...] > > Okay for "hash". > > I think we only need at most two names for this, so this is more a matter > of fixing old usage than documenting it. It's short enough to keep it in the glossary _and_ fix the old documentation. > > [blabla] index [blable] cache [bliblo] > > Well, it often contains information not present anywhere else (the status > of a merge; the set of files being committed, added, or removed), so it > isn't really a cache at all. Okay, okay. I stand corrected. > > Maybe I was too cautious. Linus very new idea was to think of the lowest > > level of an SCM as a file system. But I did not want to mention that. > > Thinking of it again, maybe I should. > > You probably don't need to mention that tree objects and index files can > be thought of as filesystems, but you should specify that the working tree > really is in the Unix filesystem, in case people have heard of the idea. > > It should be clear to say 'You can "cd" there and "ls" to list your > files.', rather than 'Think "ls -laR"' which makes my think of the output, > which is like the output from git-ls-files. How about this: working tree:: The set of files and directories currently being worked on, i.e. you can work in your working tree without using git at all. > > > > checkout:: > > > > > > Move after "revision"? > > > > Ultimately, the glossary terms will be sorted alphabetically. If you look > > at the file attached to my original mail, this is already sorted and > > marked up using asciidoc. However, I wanted you and the list to understand > > how I grouped terms. The asciidoc'ed file is generated by a perl script. > > Ah, okay. Sorry, I attributed these "moving suggestions" to the large and angry SCM, while those were your comments. Since Junio decided to keep the "topic ordered" form in his repository, I moved them around according to your mail. > > > > resolve:: > > > > The action of fixing up manually what a failed automatic merge > > > > left behind. > > > > > > "Resolve" is also used for the automatic case (e.g., in > > > "git-resolve-script", which goes from having two commits and a message to > > > having a new commit). I'm not sure what the distinction is supposed to be. > > > > I did not like that naming anyway. In reality, git-resolve-script does not > > resolve anything, but it merges two revisions, possibly leaving something > > to resolve. > > Right; I think we should change the name of the script. How many users are there? Probably many call git-pull-script anyway, right? Ciao, Dscho ``` ## Tim Ottinger, 2005-08-24 15:03 Subject: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <430C8C31.1070902@progeny.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/430C8C31.1070902%40progeny.com In-Reply-To: ``` So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming? While it would cause me and my team some personal effort (we have a special-purpose porcelain), it would be welcome to have a lexicon that is sane and consistent, and in tune with all the documentation. Others may feel differently, I understand. -- ><> ... either 'way ahead of the game, or 'way out in left field. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-08-25 01:16 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <7v4q9eak9k.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v4q9eak9k.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <430C8C31.1070902@progeny.com> ``` Tim Ottinger writes: > So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming? I personally do not see it coming. Any particular one you have in mind? ``` ## Tim Ottinger, 2005-09-01 17:55 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <43174090.5070503@progeny.com> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/43174090.5070503%40progeny.com In-Reply-To: <7v4q9eak9k.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` Junio C Hamano wrote: >Tim Ottinger writes: > > > >>So when this gets all settled, will we see a lot of tool renaming? >> >> > >I personally do not see it coming. Any particular one you have >in mind? > > > git-update-cache for instance? I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now. -- ><> ... either 'way ahead of the game, or 'way out in left field. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-09-02 00:38 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <7vek88tib4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vek88tib4.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <43174090.5070503@progeny.com> ``` Tim Ottinger writes: > git-update-cache for instance? > I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now. Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in practice. Too many of us have already got our fingers wired to type cache, and the glossary is there to describe both cache and index. ``` ## Daniel Barkalow, 2005-09-02 18:09 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0509021358000.23242%40iabervon.org In-Reply-To: <7vek88tib4.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Tim Ottinger writes: > > > git-update-cache for instance? > > I am not sure which 'cache' commands need to be 'index' now. > > Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in > practice. Too many of us have already got our fingers wired to > type cache, and the glossary is there to describe both cache and > index. My vote's for changing the official names, but keeping symlinks for the old names. As far as I know, there aren't any actual conflicts, and we might as well have new users pick up the logical names. I particularly think "git merge" would be really good to have. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-09-02 18:33 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <7voe7bfhfz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7voe7bfhfz.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: ``` Daniel Barkalow writes: > On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Tim Ottinger writes: >> >> > git-update-cache for instance? >> >> Logically you are right, but I suspect that may not fly well in >> practice. Too many of us have already got our fingers wired to >> type cache, and the glossary is there to describe both cache and >> index. > > My vote's for changing the official names, but keeping symlinks for the > old names. As far as I know, there aren't any actual conflicts, and we > might as well have new users pick up the logical names. I particularly > think "git merge" would be really good to have. OK. As Horst also says, we should do this before 1.0. 0.99.6:: This hopefully will be done on Sep 7th. Tool renames will not happen in this release, but the set of cleaned up names will be discussed on the list during this timeperiod. I'll draw up a strawman tonight unless somebody else does it first. 0.99.7:: We install symbolic links for the old names. For the documentation, we do not bother --- just install under new names. Also remove support for ancient environment variable names from gitenv(). Aim for Sep 17th. 0.99.8:: Aim for Oct 1st; we do not install symbolic links anymore and supply "clean-old-install" target in the Makefile that removes symlinks installed by 0.99.7 from DESTDIR. This target is not run automatically from other usual make targets; it is just there for your convenience. ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-09-03 06:05 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <7v8xyebs9v.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7v8xyebs9v.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: <7voe7bfhfz.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` I said: > I'll draw up a strawman tonight unless somebody else > does it first. 1. Say 'index' when you are tempted to say 'cache'. git-checkout-cache git-checkout-index git-convert-cache git-convert-index git-diff-cache git-diff-index git-fsck-cache git-fsck-index git-merge-cache git-merge-index git-update-cache git-update-index 2. The act of combining two or more heads is called 'merging'; fetching immediately followed by merging is called 'pulling'. git-resolve-script git-merge-script The commit walkers are called *-pull, but this is probably confusing. They are not pulling. git-http-pull git-http-walk git-local-pull git-local-walk git-ssh-pull git-ssh-walk 3. Non-binaries are called '*-scripts'. In earlier discussions some people seem to like the distinction between *-script and others; I did not particularly like it, but I am throwing this in for discussion. git-applymbox git-applymbox-script git-applypatch git-applypatch-script git-cherry git-cherry-script git-shortlog git-shortlog-script git-whatchanged git-whatchanged-script 4. To be removed shortly. git-clone-dumb-http should be folded into git-clone-script ``` ## Daniel Barkalow, 2005-09-03 06:54 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0509030233350.23242%40iabervon.org In-Reply-To: <7v8xyebs9v.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On Fri, 2 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > I said: > > > I'll draw up a strawman tonight unless somebody else > > does it first. > > 1. Say 'index' when you are tempted to say 'cache'. > > git-checkout-cache git-checkout-index > git-convert-cache git-convert-index > git-diff-cache git-diff-index > git-fsck-cache git-fsck-index > git-merge-cache git-merge-index > git-update-cache git-update-index Agreed, except that git-convert-cache and git-fsck-cache actually have nothing to do this the index by any name, and should probably be git-convert-objects and git-fsck-objects. > 2. The act of combining two or more heads is called 'merging'; > fetching immediately followed by merging is called 'pulling'. > > git-resolve-script git-merge-script > > The commit walkers are called *-pull, but this is probably > confusing. They are not pulling. > > git-http-pull git-http-walk > git-local-pull git-local-walk > git-ssh-pull git-ssh-walk I think "fetch" is more applicable to what they do. > 3. Non-binaries are called '*-scripts'. > > In earlier discussions some people seem to like the > distinction between *-script and others; I did not > particularly like it, but I am throwing this in for > discussion. > > git-applymbox git-applymbox-script > git-applypatch git-applypatch-script > git-cherry git-cherry-script > git-shortlog git-shortlog-script > git-whatchanged git-whatchanged-script I don't think it matters very much whether something is a script or not; on the other hand, it would be good to have "git" list a reasonable set of commands to use through the interface, which would exclude, for example, git-merge-one-file-script, and include the above commands. > 4. To be removed shortly. > > git-clone-dumb-http should be folded into git-clone-script Agreed. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* ``` ## Junio C Hamano, 2005-09-03 08:29 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: <7vy86e5zbf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/7vy86e5zbf.fsf%40assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net In-Reply-To: ``` Daniel Barkalow writes: > Agreed, except that git-convert-cache and git-fsck-cache actually have > nothing to do this the index by any name, and should probably be > git-convert-objects and git-fsck-objects. You are right. > I think "fetch" is more applicable to what they do. OK. then they are git-http-fetch and friends. How about git-ssh-push? The counterpart of fetch-pack/clone-pack is called upload-pack, so would git-ssh-upload make things more consistent? I dunno. > I don't think it matters very much whether something is a script or not; > on the other hand, it would be good to have "git" list a reasonable set of > commands to use through the interface, which would exclude, for example, > git-merge-one-file-script, and include the above commands. Are you suggesting to drop -script from git-merge-one-file? Then git-cherry should perhaps keep its current name. ``` ## Daniel Barkalow, 2005-09-04 17:23 Subject: Re: Tool renames? was Re: First stab at glossary Message-ID: URL: https://gitlist.dev/e/Pine.LNX.4.63.0509041318390.23242%40iabervon.org In-Reply-To: <7vy86e5zbf.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> ``` On Sat, 3 Sep 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Daniel Barkalow writes: > > > I think "fetch" is more applicable to what they do. > > OK. then they are git-http-fetch and friends. How about > git-ssh-push? The counterpart of fetch-pack/clone-pack is > called upload-pack, so would git-ssh-upload make things more > consistent? I dunno. I like that idea. > > I don't think it matters very much whether something is a script or not; > > on the other hand, it would be good to have "git" list a reasonable set of > > commands to use through the interface, which would exclude, for example, > > git-merge-one-file-script, and include the above commands. > > Are you suggesting to drop -script from git-merge-one-file? > Then git-cherry should perhaps keep its current name. I'd suggest it get a different ending, like .sh or -helper. That way, it's distinct both from binaries and from scripts that people run directly. -Daniel *This .sig left intentionally blank* ```