# cbx33/gitt

Switch branches/tags
Nothing to show
Fetching contributors…
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
1324 lines (1120 sloc) 67 KB
 % chap8.tex - Week 8 \cleardoublepage %\phantomsection \chapter{Week 8 - Patching, Bisecting, Bundling and Submodules} \section{Day 1 - Give a man a patch''} \subsection{Collaborating with outsiders} We have spoken at great length now about rebasing and have seen that it is a very very powerful tool. It can form part of your workflow in your development cycle. However, always heed that warning that should send alarm bells ringing in the back of your mind about rebasing. Rebasing changes the past. Rebasing changes history. As such, it should be used a) with caution, and b) only by people who understand exactly what they are doing. We are going to leave rebasing for a while now, take a quick look at a feature you really should know about and then focus on some of the more advanced features of Git. The following situation occurs fairly regularly for some people. \begin{trenches} John was stroking his chin and looking pensively out of the window when Simon approached his desk. The manager hadn't seen him yet and Simon instinctively swayed a little back and forth, try to make himself known in as subtle a way as possible. Klaus, who was watching from the corner of his eye took a more direct approach. He took the out of date org chart down from the office divider, screwed it up into a ball and launched it at John's head. It struck the manager squarely in the jaw causing him to almost tip from his awkwardly balanced chair. John noticed Simon standing there and looked a little surprised. He then noticed Klaus and in an instant understood the chain of events that had just taken place. Sorry Simon,'' started John, I've been trying to figure out a problem all morning.'' It's no problem.'' Simon pulled up a chair and sat down. I was wondering if you had a few minutes to discuss Luigi?'' \thoughtbreak Well as Luigi is a contractor, he's not going to get access to our repository here to perform commits directly. And he doesn't have the capability, nor do I really want him, making our code available on the internet. But he does have a clone of our repository from last week.'' John understood the problem. Right!'' Have you heard of patching in Git?'' asked John. Simon looked at his shoes, Can't say I have John, sorry.'' John smiled, No worrys. What we can do is get Luigi to generate a patch of his changes. We can then take that patch and apply it to our codebase. Luigi can then just reset his clone when he comes into the office.'' Simon nodded as John continued, Go and ask Martha about it. I think she's pretty hot on these types of things.'' Klaus giggled, Think she's hot eh John?'' The paper was returned. \end{trenches} \index{patching!process}It is a good question though. Sometimes you may have a repository that is either publically available, or made available to a group of people. You do not necessarily want to set up a remote tracking branch and pull changes in from every single contributor. There are two primary reasons for this; \begin{enumerate} \item There are a large number of people submitting small changes to the code. \item There are difficulties in communicating between the two repositories either for security or general reasons. \end{enumerate} In these cases we need another way to apply changes from one branch into another. Many larger open source projects allow contributors to email in patches. Git does have some rather advanced ways of dealing with these types of scenarios. We are going to scratch the surface and look at using three commands \texttt{git apply}, \texttt{git format-patch} and \texttt{git am}. \index{patching!generating}First, let us find a way of generating a patch. Let us take the example we have currently in our repository. Imagine that the \textbf{develop} branch exists on another computer in a clone of our repository. At some point in time, someone cloned our repository. They have the HEAD of our repository at the same point as we do, but they have continued to do some development in a new branch called \textbf{develop}. Now they are ready to give those changes back. Firstly we are going to look at using the \texttt{git diff} tool to generate a patch file which we can apply. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git checkout develop Already on 'develop' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git diff master develop diff --git a/newfile2 b/newfile2 index 3545c1d..ff59f55 100644 --- a/newfile2 +++ b/newfile2 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ Another new file and a new awesome feature +newer dev work diff --git a/newfile3 b/newfile3 index 638113c..2e00739 100644 --- a/newfile3 +++ b/newfile3 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ These changes are in the origin +new dev work john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} That will generate us a diff from the \texttt{develop} to the \texttt{master} branch. We could copy and paste that information from the terminal window into a file, but Linux offers us an easier way of doing this. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git diff master develop > our_patch.diff john@satsuki:~/coderepo$cat our_patch.diff diff --git a/newfile2 b/newfile2 index 3545c1d..ff59f55 100644 --- a/newfile2 +++ b/newfile2 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ Another new file and a new awesome feature +newer dev work diff --git a/newfile3 b/newfile3 index 638113c..2e00739 100644 --- a/newfile3 +++ b/newfile3 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ These changes are in the origin +new dev work john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} \index{patching!applying}So we can see that the file itself has the information we are looking for. Now we can use the \indexgit{apply} tool to actually modify the files in \textbf{master} and bring in the changes that have happened in \textbf{develop}. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git checkout master Switched to branch 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git apply our_patch.diff john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git diff diff --git a/newfile2 b/newfile2 index 3545c1d..ff59f55 100644 --- a/newfile2 +++ b/newfile2 @@ -1,2 +1,3 @@ Another new file and a new awesome feature +newer dev work diff --git a/newfile3 b/newfile3 index 638113c..2e00739 100644 --- a/newfile3 +++ b/newfile3 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ These changes are in the origin +new dev work john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git commit -a -m 'Updated with patch' [master 81eee9f] Updated with patch 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git diff develop master john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Of course doing things this way means that we still have to commit our changes. Plus, all of the changes that we have made in the patch are committed in one block. Sure, we could split that using some of the techniques in the After Hours sections, but then we may not always be aware of what should be split where. \subsection{Can we have some order please?} There is another tool that can come to our rescue here. It is primarily used for working with \index{mbox} mailboxes, but it also has some other uses which we will describe here. Would it not be nice to be able to have each commit that we want to use as a patch in a separate patch file. The file \texttt{our\_patch.diff} above contained two commits worth of data. We have access to another tool in our fight against disparate systems. This is the \indexgit{format-patch} command. First we will undo the changes we made previously by resetting the \textbf{master} branch back to its older position and deleting the \texttt{our\_patch.diff} file. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git reflog show master -n 4 81eee9f master@{0}: commit: Updated with patch f8d5100 master@{1}: commit: Finished new dev 1968324 master@{2}: commit: Start new dev john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git reset --hard f8d5100 HEAD is now at f8d5100 Finished new dev john@satsuki:~/coderepo$rm our_patch.diff john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} We used the \texttt{git reflog} command to show what the last four \textbf{master} HEAD values were. Then we reset the branch back to the point before the \texttt{git apply}. Finally we deleted the patch. \index{patching!multiple file generation}Now let us see how to use the \texttt{git format-patch} command to create multiple patch files. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git format-patch master..develop 0001-Some-new-dev-work.patch 0002-More-new-deving.patch john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} It would appear that the result of this command is that two files have been generated. Let us confirm our suspicions and \texttt{cat} the contents of them to ensure that they contain the data we expect. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$cat 0001-Some-new-dev-work.patch From af3c6d730a8632d99b5626a7c0e921d14af21f50 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: John Haskins Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 19:01:59 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] Some new dev work --- newfile3 | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/newfile3 b/newfile3 index 638113c..2e00739 100644 --- a/newfile3 +++ b/newfile3 @@ -1 +1,2 @@ These changes are in the origin +new dev work -- 1.7.4.1 john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Woah! Hold on a minute. This does not seem to be a normal diff file at all. In fact, that is absolutely right. This is a patch file and the two are not the same. The patch file contains much more information than the simple diff file. For a start we get information about which commit this patch came from, who created it, when and a subject. In fact this looks almost like an email. In fact it is created to resemble a format that would be easily emailable. \index{patching!a range}We have specified a range of commits to the \texttt{git format-patch} command with the parameter \texttt{master..develop}. The format of that parameter should be familar from earlier chapters when we utilised it for commands like \texttt{git diff} and \texttt{git log}. We could now take those files, email them to someone else and they could apply them. Let us learn one more tool, and see how we would apply those patches when they had been received at the other end. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git am 0001-Some-new-dev-work.patch Applying: Some new dev work john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git am 0002-More-new-deving.patch Applying: More new deving john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git diff master..develop john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Of course this is just a simple example case and in actual usage there may be cases where conflicts and other complications occur. Looking at a log output, we can see that the original dates and times of the commits are maintained and are not updated. We can ignore this if we wish and use the \texttt{--ignore-date} parameter to use the current date when committing the patch to the repository. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git log -n4 commit 30900fe1b7e72411dabab8b02070f36e2431f704 Author: John Haskins Date: Thu Jul 7 19:02:15 2011 +0100 More new deving commit a8281fb589e36389cc8cb0da7ebee225b4d1adfc Author: John Haskins Date: Thu Jul 7 19:01:59 2011 +0100 Some new dev work commit f8d5100142b43ffaba9bbd539ba4fd92af79bf0e Author: John Haskins Date: Thu Jul 7 08:39:29 2011 +0100 Finished new dev commit 1968324ce2899883fca76bc25496bcf2b15e7011 Author: John Haskins Date: Thu Jul 7 08:39:07 2011 +0100 Start new dev john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Interestingly if we use our alias for the log command we see something maybe a little unexpected. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git logg -n6 * 30900fe (HEAD, master) More new deving * a8281fb Some new dev work | * aed985c (develop) More new deving | * af3c6d7 Some new dev work |/ * f8d5100 Finished new dev * 1968324 Start new dev john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Notice that the branch \textbf{master} has not been simply fast forwarded to that of commit of \textbf{develop}. This is because we have not performed a merge, but in a sense we have manually made that changes to the files and created separate commits for them. In this way the commits \textbf{30900fe} and \textbf{a8281fb} are not the same as their \textbf{develop} counterparts. If you intend to use this workflow, it is worth spending some time reading the man page for \texttt{git am} and \texttt{git format-patch} as both of them hold valuable information regarding the customisation and handling of patches and emails. Tamagoyaki Inc. are not going to use this workflow often and so just applying a few patches here and there from contractors using the methods is prefectly acceptable to them. If you were a large open source establishment, or any company that accepts a large number of patches, you may want to take a closer look at how to work these. Now it is time to move on to some more advanced topics within Git, but first a little cleanup. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$rm 0001-Some-new-dev-work.patch john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ rm 0002-More-new-deving.patch john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} \section{Day 2 - Looking for problems''} \subsection{A problem shared is a problem bisected} \index{bisecting}During most software development, bugs are introduced. Sometimes these bugs are fixed immediately and sometimes they sit there in the code festering away for months on end until someone tests a specific case. Of course it is always best to have test suites and run them regularly against the code base, but on occasions either the test case itself has a bug, or the test case is written in such a way that a particular bug would never present itself. Tamagoyaki Inc. have a fairly rigorous testing procedure. Unfortunately it would seem that one particularly nasty bug has slipped through the cracks. Cue a difficult discussion. \begin{trenches} But what I don't understand John, is that you now know what happened at every step in the process. How can something like this break and you not know about it?'' As always Markus was getting snappy and as always John was having to bite his lip. It's not a question about not knowing about it,'' begain John, The difficulty is knowing what change introduced the problem. We are on such a rapid development schedule that too many things are changing at once.'' Well, this is one of the reasons you guys have spent the last two months getting this version control system running.'' Markus got up and opened the door. I suggest you fix it.'' \thoughtbreak Markus is blaming us for introducing a bug?'' Rob was pretty shocked as he and Simon chatted at the water cooler. More like, Markus believed that a version control system was going to solve all of our problems,'' replied Simon. Rob squinted his face up as a car drove into the buildings car park, showering the room with reflected sunlight. He shielded his eyes. You know I heard there was a tool in Git for helping to find bugs. Think I may take a look over lunch, you know, be a real hero.'' They both chuckled. \end{trenches} It is true that Git does have a very powerful tool for helping to detect revisions that introduced bugs into the system. The tool is called \indexgit{bisect} and it is used to successively checkout revisions from the repository, check them to see if the bug is present and then use that information to determine the revision that is most likely to have introduced the bug. \index{bisecting!simple}Let us assume that the bug in our repository is a fairly simple one. For some bizarre reason our codebase is broken unless the word \texttt{Addition} is present in one of the files. If we run a simple Linux \texttt{grep} command across the files, we can see that the word we are after is not there. However, if we go back to tag \textbf{v1.0a} and run the same command, we can see that the word is there. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ grep "Addition" * john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git checkout v1.0a Note: checking out 'v1.0a'. You are in 'detached HEAD' state. You can look around, make experimental changes and commit them, and you can discard any commits you make in this state without impacting any branches by performing another checkout. If you want to create a new branch to retain commits you create, you may do so (now or later) by using -b with the checkout command again. Example: git checkout -b new_branch_name HEAD is now at a022d4d... Messed with a few files john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ grep "Addition" * my_third_committed_file:Addition to the line john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} Notice the warning about checking out a non-branch. This is perfectly normal and should not worry you but please be aware that it is obviously best to have a clean working directory before starting any type of \texttt{bisect} commands. We can see that the string we are looking for is present in the file called \texttt{my\_third\_committed\_file}. As our repository is very small, it would not take us long to go through and check each revision to see when this string was deleted. In fact we have other tools available to search for the adding and removal of strings. For now let us assume that the \emph{bug} is more complicated than this. Let us go back to the facts. \index{bisecting!set good point}\index{bisecting!set bad point}We know that the repository was \textbf{good} at tag \textbf{v1.0a}. We also know that the repository is bad in its current state. By feeding these details to the \texttt{git bisect} command, we can begin a search for the bug. What will happen at each stage is that Git will checkout a revision that it wants us to test and we tell Git if we think that revision is good or bad. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git bisect start Already on 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git bisect good v1.0a john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git bisect bad master Bisecting: 9 revisions left to test after this (roughly 3 steps) [ed2301ba223a63a5a930b536a043444e019460a7] Removed third file john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} So we invoke the tool by running \texttt{git bisect start}. After this we tell Git the things that we know. It was good at \textbf{v1.0a}, \texttt{git bisect good v1.0a}. However, it was bad at \textbf{master}, our current revision, \texttt{git bisect bad master}. After this, Git checks out revision \textbf{ed2301b} and tells us that there are \texttt{9} revisions between the two points and that it should take only \texttt{3} more steps to complete. Now we run our test again. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ grep "Addition" * john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} \index{bisecting!marking result}As we have no result here, this would be classed as a bad revision and so we mark it as so. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git bisect bad Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps) [9710177657ae00665ca8f8027b17314346a5b1c4] Added another file john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} Git now presents us with a new choice and you can see that the number of revisions left to check has decreased dramatically from \texttt{9} to \texttt{3}. We continue marking our revisions as good and bad. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ grep "Addition" * my_third_committed_file:Addition to the line john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git bisect good Bisecting: 2 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [cfbecabb031696a217b77b0e1285f2d5fc2ea2a3] Fantastic new feature john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ grep "Addition" * my_third_committed_file:Addition to the line john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git bisect good Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [b119573f4508514c55e1c4e3bebec0ab3667d071] Merge branch 'wonderful' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ grep "Addition" * my_third_committed_file:Addition to the line john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git bisect good ed2301ba223a63a5a930b536a043444e019460a7 is the first bad commit commit ed2301ba223a63a5a930b536a043444e019460a7 Author: John Haskins Date: Fri Apr 1 07:37:34 2011 +0100 Removed third file :100644 000000 68365cc0e5909dc366d31febf5ba94a3268751c6 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 D my_third_committed_file john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Oh! Something different. Git has actually finished the bisect and has suggested to us that this commit was responsible for introducing the bug in our code. If we look at the comment it was in this revision that we removed a particular file. This file was the one that contained our special \texttt{Addition} string. Git was right! We screwed up then. At this point we can go back to our \textbf{master} branch and decide what to do about it. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git branch -v * (no branch) b119573 Merge branch 'wonderful' develop aed985c More new deving master 30900fe More new deving wonderful 4d91aab Updated another file again zaney 7cc32db Made another awesome change john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git checkout master Previous HEAD position was b119573... Merge branch 'wonderful' Switched to branch 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} Notice that at the end of the bisect, Git does not return us to the master branch. We are left in the last tested checked out revision. \subsection{Automating the process} \index{bisecting!automation}So bisecting is a very powerful way of quickly and efficiently finding the point at which bugs were introduced or \index{regression testing}regression testing. Git was spot on when it suggested that that revision was the one responsible for the mistake. Sometimes you may not be able to test a revision that Git checks out for you for other reasons. In this case you can always run \texttt{git bisect skip} to skip that revision. It is all very well being able to run this at each revision Git asks us to but to be honest, if you have 30-40 steps to test and you have to compile code to see if the bug is present it can get a little bit boring. Git has a way of allowing us to test automatically. The example we are going to use is obviously based on a Linux environment, but if you are a developer on a Windows platform, you should have no trouble understanding what is happening here. We are going to create a small shell script that will automatically run our grep test. If the string is found we will exit with a status code of \texttt{0}, indicating that it was successful and if the string is not found, we will exit with a status code of \texttt{123}, indicating that the test was unsuccessful. Git will use these status codes and interpret a code of \texttt{0} as \textbf{good} and a code of \texttt{123} as \textbf{bad}. Below is a copy of our shell script which we have saved as \texttt{test.sh} and have given relevant permissions to allow it to run etc. Notice we have had to exclude our \texttt{test.sh} file from the test, else the string \texttt{Addition} would have been found there which would have returned true every time. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ cat test.sh #!/bin/bash if grep -q Addition * --exclude=test.sh then echo "Good" exit 0 else echo "Bad" exit 123 fi john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} Now we invoke \texttt{git bisect} slightly differently by asking it to start and itterate over the revisions \texttt{master} to \texttt{v1.0a}. At this point we have not told Git anything about which revisions are good or bad. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git bisect start master v1.0a Bisecting: 9 revisions left to test after this (roughly 3 steps) [ed2301ba223a63a5a930b536a043444e019460a7] Removed third file john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} Now we ask Git to continue testing, but to run our script at each iteration to determine the success or failure of each checked out revision. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git bisect run sh ./test.sh running sh ./test.sh Bad Bisecting: 3 revisions left to test after this (roughly 2 steps) [9710177657ae00665ca8f8027b17314346a5b1c4] Added another file running sh ./test.sh Good Bisecting: 2 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [cfbecabb031696a217b77b0e1285f2d5fc2ea2a3] Fantastic new feature running sh ./test.sh Good Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step) [b119573f4508514c55e1c4e3bebec0ab3667d071] Merge branch 'wonderful' running sh ./test.sh Good ed2301ba223a63a5a930b536a043444e019460a7 is the first bad commit commit ed2301ba223a63a5a930b536a043444e019460a7 Author: John Haskins Date: Fri Apr 1 07:37:34 2011 +0100 Removed third file :100644 000000 68365cc0e5909dc366d31febf5ba94a3268751c6 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 D my_third_committed_file bisect run success john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} The parameters after the \texttt{git bisect run} tell Git which command we wish to run at each stage. In our case it is \texttt{sh ./test.sh}. You can see Git invoking our \texttt{test.sh} script in each case, and the result of our script, either \texttt{Good} or \texttt{Bad} depending on which was echoed from the result of the grep test. Git has arrived at exactly the same result, but we have had to do nothing other than write a small script. For larger tests, this would have saved us a large amount of work. \begin{trenches} Simon could I have a word?'' It was Rob and he wasn't looking happy. Simon turned to him and grinned, Sure buddy what's up?'' His face dropped when he saw Rob's expression. I think we'd better go grab the meeting room.'' Simon looked confused. I used the bisect tool to find the bug. But you're not gonna like what I found.'' \thoughtbreak Simon how could you have done that?'' John was asking the questions and they were coming thick and fast. I mean changing the API key for the web sevice whilst developing was not a great idea to start with, but committing that to the repository was rediculous.'' Simon sat there with his head in his hands. You know how secret that API key is right?'' Simon nodded. Simon we were supposed to be releasing this repository publically in a few weeks but now that the API is in there we can't do that.'' John I'm really sorry OK.'' Simon was kicking himself for his mistake. John sighed, he had been really angry to begin with but now he was calming down, It's OK Simon, we're all getting used to the repository and version control. Do you think we can fix it?'' \end{trenches} \section{Day 3 - Filtered repos''} \subsection{Looking at a repo with rose tinted glasses} \index{filtering}It does happen. Sometimes when people are under pressure, mistakes are made, just like earlier when we accidently deleted our branch from the repository. This time the mistake is a little more crucial but again it does happen and it sometimes goes a long time before it is noticed. \begin{trenches} So it's been in there for how long?'' asked John. Simon looked pretty sheepish as he mouthed the words, Weeks.'' John bit on the end of the pen in his hand. His teeth chewed into the plastic, deforming the blue lid. Did you find a way of sorting it out yet?'' I think so. It's not ideal, but I think so.'' \end{trenches} It would be useful if we could rewrite the history to remove the information that we wanted to. As it turns out there is a tool that we can use to do this. The \indexgit{filter-branch} allows us to run operations on a branch to rewrite its history. Hopefully you are already remembering about the care we need to take when rewriting history, but sometimes there is a real need to perform some of these operations. Let us take a look at a few examples to see how this can work. We are going to assume that our file \texttt{newfile1} contains some very sensitive information and we wish to remove it completely from the repository. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git checkout master Already on 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ls -la total 40 drwxr-xr-x 3 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:54 . drwxr-xr-x 32 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:00 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 35 2011-07-22 07:15 another_file -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 25 2011-07-22 07:15 cont_dev drwxrwxr-x 9 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:54 .git -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 69 2011-07-27 19:54 newfile1 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 58 2011-07-22 07:15 newfile2 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 45 2011-07-22 07:15 newfile3 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 8 2011-03-31 22:15 temp_file -rwxrwxr-x 1 john john 114 2011-07-21 21:17 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} As you can see, currently we have \texttt{newfile1} in our tree. We can also use the \texttt{git log} tool to see each commit which has touched that path. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git log --pretty=oneline master -- newfile1 9cb2af2a00fd2253060e6bf8cc6c377b3d55ecea Important Update d50ffb2fa536d869f2c4e89e8d6a48e0a29c5cc1 Merged in zaney a27d49ef11d9f0e66edbad8f6c7806510ad5b2be Made an awesome change cfbecabb031696a217b77b0e1285f2d5fc2ea2a3 Fantastic new feature 55fb69f4ad26fdb6b90ac6f43431be40779962dd Added two new files john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} So there were five commits in the past which have touched that path. In our example we require the removal of this path from the entire history of the repository. As this is a destructive operation that works on the current branch, meaning it will rewrite our branch HEAD, we are first going to switch into a new branch. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git checkout -b remove_file Switched to a new branch 'remove_file' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} \index{filtering!index}Now we need to run the \texttt{git filter-branch} tool. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git filter-branch --index-filter 'git rm --cached --ignore-unmatch newfile1' HEAD Rewrite 55fb69f4ad26fdb6b90ac6f43431be40779962dd (6/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 9710177657ae00665ca8f8027b17314346a5b1c4 (7/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 4ac92012609cf8ed2480aa5d7f807caf2545fe2f (8/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite cfbecabb031696a217b77b0e1285f2d5fc2ea2a3 (9/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite b119573f4508514c55e1c4e3bebec0ab3667d071 (10/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite ed2301ba223a63a5a930b536a043444e019460a7 (11/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite a27d49ef11d9f0e66edbad8f6c7806510ad5b2be (12/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 7cc32dbf121f2afa8c40337db54bafb26de5b9c4 (13/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite d50ffb2fa536d869f2c4e89e8d6a48e0a29c5cc1 (14/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 9cb2af2a00fd2253060e6bf8cc6c377b3d55ecea (15/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 37950f861a3cc0868c65ee9571fc6c491aa689ea (16/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 1c3206aac0fb012bfdaf5ff00e320b565bb89e7d (17/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 1968324ce2899883fca76bc25496bcf2b15e7011 (18/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite f8d5100142b43ffaba9bbd539ba4fd92af79bf0e (19/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite a8281fb589e36389cc8cb0da7ebee225b4d1adfc (20/21)rm 'newfile1' Rewrite 30900fe1b7e72411dabab8b02070f36e2431f704 (21/21)rm 'newfile1' Ref 'refs/heads/remove_file' was rewritten john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} We have passed a few parameters to \texttt{git filter-branch} and we should take a few seconds to discuss this as the syntax may seem a little strange. Firstly we are invoking the \texttt{git filter-branch} tool, that should not be anything new at all. Next, we are passing three parameters to it. The first of these is the type of filter we wish to use. In our case we have used the \texttt{--index-filter} option. More information is available in the Git manual, but in a nutshell we have asked Git to work on the \emph{index} at each commit stage. \index{filtering!tree}There is another similar option called \texttt{--tree-filter}, however care must be taken to distinguish between the two as using \texttt{--tree-filter} checks out the commit at each point in history. This may not sound like a problem, until you discover that as well as checking each revision out, it also automatically adds any untracked files in the working tree and commits them. The next parameter is the actual command that we wish Git to perform on each revision. In this case we want to \texttt{git rm --cached --ignore-unmatch newfile1} each time. We have enclosed the command we wish to run inside quotes so that Git does not get confused with which parameters are part of the \texttt{filter-branch} and which are part of the \texttt{rm}. Using these options we have asked Git to work on just the \emph{index} and not to complain if it can not find the file to delete. Lastly we list the commit range we wish to filter. In this case we have specified the target revision as \texttt{HEAD}. Git will interpret this as meaning everything up to the \texttt{HEAD} revision. As such Git will be rewriting the entire history of the branch. Now if we list the files in the directory, we can see something important has happened. The file that we wanted removed, has gone and \texttt{newfile1} is no more. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ls -la total 36 drwxr-xr-x 3 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:53 . drwxr-xr-x 32 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:00 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 35 2011-07-22 07:15 another_file -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 25 2011-07-22 07:15 cont_dev drwxrwxr-x 9 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:53 .git -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 58 2011-07-22 07:15 newfile2 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 45 2011-07-22 07:15 newfile3 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 8 2011-03-31 22:15 temp_file -rwxrwxr-x 1 john john 114 2011-07-21 21:17 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Re-running the log command we ran earlier against our new branch confirms our operation. However checking out the \textbf{master} also confirms that the file is still present elsewhere. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git log --pretty=oneline remove_file -- newfile1 john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git checkout master Switched to branch 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ls -la total 40 drwxr-xr-x 3 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:54 . drwxr-xr-x 32 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:00 .. -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 35 2011-07-22 07:15 another_file -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 25 2011-07-22 07:15 cont_dev drwxrwxr-x 9 john john 4096 2011-07-27 19:54 .git -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 69 2011-07-27 19:54 newfile1 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 58 2011-07-22 07:15 newfile2 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 45 2011-07-22 07:15 newfile3 -rw-r--r-- 1 john john 8 2011-03-31 22:15 temp_file -rwxrwxr-x 1 john john 114 2011-07-21 21:17 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} It should be stressed at this point how destructive the \texttt{git filter-branch} command can be to your repository. The \textbf{master} and \textbf{remove\_file} branches have diverged from the point where \texttt{newfile1} was first introduced. Consequently all of our other branches, such as \textbf{zaney} and \textbf{wonderful} still refer to the \textbf{master} branch. We would also have to rewrite those branches too, but because of the rewriting of commit objects, we could lose the relationships between the branches and their ancestors. In short, though it is exceedingly powerful, this type of filtering can cause huge distress to other people working on the project. \begin{trenches} So what do we do?'' asked John. We can't push out the repo as it is because it contains the API key.'' He massaged his forehead moving down to his eyebrows. But we seem to be introducing a real headache if we filter the branch. Any suggestions?'' Well the project is going to be finished in a few weeks right?'' Simon was sitting at the end of the table. He was ashamed and was talking through a pair of hands deperately trying to conceal his identity. Yeh, but what the hell has that got to do with it?'' snorted Klaus. I'm just thinking that we leave the repo like it is until all development has finished,'' he paused to run his hands through his hair, then we filter the branch just before we release it.'' He looked over at John, At that point there shouldn't be any test or dev branches, and we can just get everyone to clone the repo if we need to do anything else.'' John nodded. You know Simon I think you may have just redeemed yourself.'' \end{trenches} \begin{callout}{Note}{Since you've been gone} \index{filtering!purging}Even though we have rewritten our tree, the fact that another branch still has the file present means that our potentially senitive data still exists somewhere inside the repository. In order to truly get rid of the file we would need to not only remove the file from all branches, or delete the branches that contained the file, but also run a few more steps if we wanted to ensure the file was gone \emph{now}. Be aware that these steps are potentially very destructive to a repository. The best way to remove the file completely would be to remove ALL references to the file and then clone the repository. Git will not clone objects into a new repository if nothing references them. Alternatively if you absolutely must work on the current repository, you would need to do the following. \newline \newline Delete the \texttt{filter-branch} backup using \index{git commands!update-ref@\texttt{update-ref}}\texttt{git update-ref -d}. (See the callout on \emph{More backups}) \newline \newline Expire all reflogs with \texttt{git reflog expire --expire=now --all} \newline \newline Repack all of the pack files with \texttt{git repack -ad}\index{git commands!repack@\texttt{repack}} \newline \newline Prune all unreachable objects with \texttt{git prune}\index{git commands!prune@\texttt{prune}} \newline \newline As you can see some of these are quite scary procedures and so it is important that you understand all that you are doing before you do it. \end{callout} The idea being proposed here is only really viable because of Tamagoyaki's situation. The code is due to be finished soon and once that happens, the team have decided to push a rewritten branch into the public domain and to resync all of their development repositories to this new branch. It should be noted that the \texttt{filter-branch} tool can be used in other circumstances too. We are going to take a look at just one of these. However, let us first clean up our repository a little and move some things around. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$mkdir tester john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ ls another_file cont_dev newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 temp_file tester test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$mv test.sh tester/ john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git mv newfile* tester john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git add tester/test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ rm temp_file john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git status # On branch master # Changes to be committed: # (use "git reset HEAD ..." to unstage) # # renamed: newfile1 -> tester/newfile1 # renamed: newfile2 -> tester/newfile2 # renamed: newfile3 -> tester/newfile3 # new file: tester/test.sh # john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git commit -a -m 'Moved testing suite' [master f08ac57] Moved testing suite 4 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename newfile1 => tester/newfile1 (100%) rename newfile2 => tester/newfile2 (100%) rename newfile3 => tester/newfile3 (100%) create mode 100755 tester/test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} We have reverted back to our \textbf{master} branch and in doing so have regained \texttt{newfile1}. After that, we deleted our rewritten branch and moved \texttt{test.sh} along with all of the \texttt{newfile}s into a new folder called \texttt{tester}. \section{Day 4 - Let's make a library''} \subsection{Splitting the atom} Sometimes, after a project has been running for a while certain components actually grow rather useful. When this happens, people often want to move it outside of the original project and maintain it as a separate library. Of course the easiest way to do this is to just copy and paste the files out of the main project and into a subdirectory. In doing this we would lose or disconnect all of the development history of that subproject up to this point. \index{filtering!sub-directory}Using the \texttt{git filter-branch} we can actually pull out a folder and retain all of its history. The methodology behind this is that we rewrite the history to a new branch, but we only pull across changes to a particular folder and we store those in the root of the branch. Let us see how this works with a quick example. Remember we created the \texttt{tester} folder? We are going to make a few commits to the files in this folder to give it some history. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ echo "More development work" >> tester/newfile1 john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git commit -a -m 'Work on tester nf1' [master 1a4956b] Work on tester nf1 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ echo "More dev work" >> tester/newfile2 john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git commit -a -m 'Work on tester nf2' [master 7156104] Work on tester nf2 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ echo "Even more dev work" >> tester/newfile3 john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git commit -a -m 'Work on tester nf3' [master 1433223] Work on tester nf3 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Now we are going to split that off into a separate branch which we will then clone into a new Git repository. After we have copied the history of the \texttt{tester} folder to a new branch, see if you can run through in your head, the steps we would need to take to pull this branch into a new repository. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git checkout -b tester_split Switched to a new branch 'tester_split' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git filter-branch --subdirectory-filter tester Rewrite 1433223d9c8a8abc35410d12cf78128c318b6e42 (4/4) Ref 'refs/heads/tester_split' was rewritten john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git branch develop master * tester_split wonderful zaney john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git checkout master Switched to branch 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ ls another_file cont_dev tester john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} So now the directory has been split away from the original source code into a new branch. Have a think about what steps you would take to bring this into an entirely new repository. \begin{callout}{Note}{More backups} \index{filtering!backup}Git likes to make things easy for you. You may not have noticed it before, but when using the \texttt{git filter-branch} tool to rewrite a branch, Git keeps a backup of the value of HEAD before you started rewriting your branch. This backup is kept in \texttt{refs/original/refs/heads/}. This file will contain a commit ID which we can use to revert our branch back to its original state, if the filter does horribly wrong. \end{callout} \begin{trenches} So John, I managed to split the Atom library out into a new branch like you said, but I have no idea how to pull this into a new repo.'' Jack was finally feeling like he had gotten to grips with Git, but his latest task had left him feeling a little dejected. He idly stabbed at his leg with a pen whilst waiting for John to finish his tapping away. John lifted his keys from the keyboard and turned his chair. You really can't think of a way to copy what we have in one repo into another?'' Suddenly it was like a light bulb had exploded with light inside Jack's skull. "CLONES!" he shouted. \end{trenches} We actually have at least four methods we can use to do this. \begin{enumerate} \item Copy the data from one repo to another with a simple copy and paste \item Clone our repository, delete all of the branches other than \textbf{tester\_split} and then rename it to \textbf{master} \item Initialise a new repository, setup a remote to the original and then fetch our \textbf{tester\_split} branch \item Create a bundle of the \textbf{tester\_split} and then clone from the bundle into a new repository \end{enumerate} The first of these will leave us with no history of development at all, so let us ignore it, as it is not what we require. The second of these is trivial and should require no explanation at all. We simply clone and then using the usual tools, we delete all unnecessary branches. However this first method does have its disadvantages, namely the fact that when we clone the repository, we take every single object from the source repository into the new one. Whilst this is generally not a problem it would mean that we would have to run some fairly aggressive garbage collection to remove all of these unwanted objects. This would happen natually over time as the objects aged and were no longer referenced, but it would result in a repository that was initially much larger than it needed to be. The other two methods deserve a little more consideration as they both perform much better in this respect. The third method you should be familiar enough with previous material to be able to perform right now. However, using the fetch command as we have done so before would again pull in many more objects than we require. As such we are going to do a subtle twist to this command in the following output. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ cd ../ john@satsuki:~$mkdir subrepo john@satsuki:~$ cd subrepo/ john@satsuki:~/subrepo$git init Initialized empty Git repository in /home/john/subrepo/.git/ john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ git remote add source /home/john/coderepo john@satsuki:~/subrepo$git fetch source +tester_split:master fatal: Refusing to fetch into current branch refs/heads/master of non-bare repository john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly john@satsuki:~/subrepo$\end{code} \index{branching!fetch single branch}\index{fetching!single branch}What we have asked Git to do is to pull only the branch \textbf{tester\_split} from the remote we called \textbf{source} and place it into \textbf{master} locally. Think of the \texttt{+:} as \texttt{+:} and all will make sense. As you can see Git is not too happy about our intentions here as it does not like overwriting the \textbf{master} branch of a non-bare repository. That is OK, we have another way around this. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ git fetch source +tester_split:tmp remote: Counting objects: 15, done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (14/14), done. remote: Total 15 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) Unpacking objects: 100% (15/15), done. From /home/john/coderepo * [new branch] tester_split -> tmp john@satsuki:~/subrepo$git branch -m tmp master john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ \end{code} So we have almost deceived Git a little here, but I think we can live with ourselves. By first pulling the branch into a \textbf{tmp} branch, we were then allowed to rename it as \textbf{master}. Notice the number of objects required for this branch \texttt{15}. If you remember when we cloned our repository a few \emph{weeks} ago, this value was a lot higher than this. It was the subtle \texttt{+:} which prevented us from pulling every last object from the source repository into our new slim \emph{sub}-repository. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ls john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ git checkout master Already on 'master' john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 test.sh john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ \end{code} Notice that there are no files in the repository until we have checked out. This is because all the fetch did was to \emph{fetch} the objects and place them in the repository object directory. It did not place anything in the working directory. If you remember this is same behaviour we saw with fetching before. So now we have a complete copy of our \texttt{tester} component of our repository from the source into a new repository. If we do a \texttt{git log}, we can see the history of the development. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/subrepo$git log --format=oneline 590e0eb79bc5ba0bc09f611392e643f676b00a04 Work on tester nf3 785b86d877d2a5c0679d98181a23d06ed2ba7652 Work on tester nf2 1ff89f787438f081a0d74de2d26eb2d831c9c738 Work on tester nf1 a5a0d9762dd4b50d8f3228e37b315f6056d5a034 Moved testing suite john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ \end{code} Unfortunately since some of our development work on these files happened outside of this directory, this was lost when splitting and this is something to keep in mind should you ever perform this kind of operation. \subsection{Little bundles of joy} Git has so many ways to do things. \index{bundling}This is in part what makes it a little daunting for those just starting but after you have gained a little experience, you begin to understand just what is happening in the background. When this realisation hits, you are able to almost immediately think of at least two different ways of performing the same thing. There have been numerous examples throughout the book, where there have been multiple ways to complete the same task. Here we are going to look at just one more way that we can create a new repo from our \textbf{tester\_split} branch. The tool we are going to introduce here is \indexgit{bundle}. \index{bundling!creating}\index{bundling!cloning from}The \texttt{bundle} utility allows us to export a set of revisions and archive them to a file. This file then becomes a resource that can be updated and pulled or fetched from. This is especially useful if you have no physical connection between two computers and wish to sync some of the data from one to the other. Let us take a quick look at how we could use the bundle tool in this case. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git bundle create ../tester.bundle tester_split Counting objects: 15, done. Compressing objects: 100% (14/14), done. Writing objects: 100% (15/15), 1.50 KiB, done. Total 15 (delta 3), reused 0 (delta 0) john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ cd .. john@satsuki:~$git clone tester.bundle subrepo-b Cloning into subrepo-b... warning: remote HEAD refers to nonexistent ref, unable to checkout. john@satsuki:~$ \end{code} The syntax is fairly simple. The word \texttt{create} is used to tell Git to create a new bundle. After this we specify a filename and then the tip of the branch that we want to archive. However, as can be seen above, there is a problem. When we created the bundle, the branch which was checked out at the time was \textbf{master}. The objects we pulled from the source repository and placed in the bundle were all from the \textbf{tester\_split} branch. As such the HEAD of the working tree at the time of the bundle creation, pointed to an object in the \textbf{master} branch. Obviously this object does not exist in our bundle and so Git complains. If we had checked out \textbf{tester\_split} before creating the bundle, there would have been no complaints. So all we have to do is to remap the HEAD of \textbf{master} to that of the HEAD of \textbf{tester\_split}. As you can see below, it seems as if there are no branches at all and when we try to checkout master it does not exist. What actually happened is that the objects were cloned into the repository, but as the object that the source HEAD pointed to was unavailable, no branch was created. With a little \texttt{git reset} trickery, we can create our \textbf{master} branch in our new repository. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~$cd subrepo-b/ john@satsuki:~/subrepo-b$ git branch john@satsuki:~/subrepo-b$git checkout master error: pathspec 'master' did not match any file(s) known to git. john@satsuki:~/subrepo-b$ git reset --hard origin/tester_split HEAD is now at 590e0eb Work on tester nf3 john@satsuki:~/subrepo-b$git checkout master Already on 'master' john@satsuki:~/subrepo-b$ ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 test.sh john@satsuki:~/subrepo-b$\end{code} Now we have our repository complete as before and we have successfully reampped the \textbf{master} branch so that it points to \textbf{origin/tester\_split}. \begin{trenches} Martha and John were sitting together in the office. The rest of the team had left hours ago and it was getting really late. Martha broke the silence, So we've pulled the Atom library out,'' she giggled before continuing, but how the heck do we put it back in again?'' I'm really not sure said John,'' taking another swig of coffee before placing the mug back down on the desk. On the side was written the word GIT in large marker pen, a gift from Klaus. Martha sighed. It's getting pretty late John. I think I'm gonna head out.'' Yeh, I know what you mean,'' started John, I think I'll get going too. Thanks for the help Martha.'' Anytime John.'' \end{trenches} \section{Day 5 - Shhh....we're in a library''} \subsection{Nuclear fusion} OK, so we are not quite at the stage of nuclear physics, but it would be nice to know how to bring our library back into our repository. Git offers a tool called \indexgit{submodule}. This tool allows you to link a remote repositories branch and store it under a subdirectory of the project. It does have some nuances which must be learnt, but can be very useful. Let us add our testing suite from the \texttt{subrepo} repository into the directory called \texttt{tester} in our main \texttt{coderepo} repository. First we must remove our \texttt{tester} directory. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git checkout master Already on 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git rm tester/* rm 'tester/newfile1' rm 'tester/newfile2' rm 'tester/newfile3' rm 'tester/test.sh' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git commit -a -m 'Removed tester - will be replaced by submodule' [master 5698499] Removed tester - will be replaced by submodule 4 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 tester/newfile1 delete mode 100644 tester/newfile2 delete mode 100644 tester/newfile3 delete mode 100755 tester/test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo$\end{code} We need to define what a submodule actually is. Submodules are tricky to understand and often people use them once and conclude that they are more trouble than they are worth. However, if you take some time to understand what a submodule really is, then they can be very useful to you. A submodule is the inclusion of a repository branch at a specific commit. It is not intended to track the development of the upstream library or module, (see the callout box for an explanation of \emph{upstream}). \begin{callout}{Terminology}{Upstream} \emph{Upstream} refers to the source of a project which may have one or more derivatives which are also distributed. Take the package that was used to build this book for example, \LaTeX. \LaTeX is distributed by the people who developed it as open source software, but it is also included with a number of Linux distributions. The location of the software created by the \LaTeX developers is referred to as the \emph{upstream} project. The projects which include it within their own are what is referred to as \emph{downstream}. Think of it like a river which flows from the source further \emph{upstream}. \end{callout} As we will see, though it can be a little longwinded to actually change the version of the code that the submodule refers to, it actually makes a lot of sense to handle them in this way. If the code in the submodule is being included in your repository, you do not want to run the risk of a change upstream resulting in a broken build for your project. This is why submodules always refer to a single commit. Let us go ahead, create a submodule and then discuss the steps we have taken. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git submodule add /home/john/subrepo tester Cloning into tester... done. john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git status # On branch master # Changes to be committed: # (use "git reset HEAD ..." to unstage) # # new file: .gitmodules # new file: tester # john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git commit -a -m 'Added submodule (subrepo)' [master 2aadc11] Added submodule (subrepo) 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 .gitmodules create mode 160000 tester john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$\end{code} As you can see we had to perform a number of steps before we obtained the source for the \textbf{subrepo} library in our \texttt{tester} directory. We had to begin by using \indexgit{submodule} to add the upstream repository. The upstream repository is really just like any remote repository we have been using, but we will use the terminology \emph{upstream} to make a distinction. The command \texttt{git submodule add /home/john/subrepo tester} creates a special file in the root of our project called \texttt{.gitmodules}, plus it clones the upstream repository into the folder we specified, in this case \texttt{tester}. Notice that when we ran \texttt{git status}, we saw two new entries, one for \texttt{.gitmodules} and one for \texttt{tester}. Next we have to commit those entries using the standard \texttt{git commit} command. When we do, we see that there is a code in front of \texttt{tester} which is special and tells Git to treat this directory as a submodule. Though the submodule has now been added, it has not yet been initialised. To do this, we run our next set of steps. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git submodule init Submodule 'tester' (/home/john/subrepo) registered for path 'tester' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git submodule update john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Now our submodule has been added and initialised. The update command is used to ensure that the directory \texttt{tester} contains the version of the submodule that we committed earlier. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$cd tester/ john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$git log --format=oneline 590e0eb79bc5ba0bc09f611392e643f676b00a04 Work on tester nf3 785b86d877d2a5c0679d98181a23d06ed2ba7652 Work on tester nf2 1ff89f787438f081a0d74de2d26eb2d831c9c738 Work on tester nf1 a5a0d9762dd4b50d8f3228e37b315f6056d5a034 Moved testing suite john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} Looking in the directory we can see two things. The first, is that the files present in the \textbf{subrepo} upstream project have now been added. The second, may appear a little suprising to begin with. The \texttt{git log} command actually shows a log for the upstream project, not for the local root project stored in \texttt{coderepo}. In all honesty, the submodule repository is actually just a clone of the upstream project, with a few subtle differences. The information about which upstream url to use for the project can be found in the \texttt{.gitmodules} which we committed earlier. Below is an example of what the file looks like in our current repository. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$cat .gitmodules [submodule "tester"] path = tester url = /home/john/subrepo john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} \subsection{Changes down the river} So what happens when we want to pull in changes from the upstream project? Well, you can make your submodule point to whatever commit you like and stay there. As long as you commit your changes in the super project, Git will always allow you to return to that point using the \texttt{git submodule update} command. Let us take a look at how we could pull in some changes into our \texttt{tester} submodule. First, we are going to make a change to our upstream project. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$cd .. john@satsuki:~$ cd subrepo john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 test.sh john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ echo "Added a new function" > newfile4 john@satsuki:~/subrepo$git add newfile4 john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ git commit -a -m 'Added a new library file' [master 94ad27e] Added a new library file 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 newfile4 john@satsuki:~/subrepo$cd .. john@satsuki:~/subrepo$ \end{code} Now that we have a new version of the project, let us try to pull those changes into our superproject. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~$cd coderepo john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ cd tester john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$git status # On branch master nothing to commit (working directory clean) john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ git fetch origin remote: Counting objects: 4, done. remote: Compressing objects: 100% (2/2), done. remote: Total 3 (delta 1), reused 0 (delta 0) Unpacking objects: 100% (3/3), done. From /home/john/subrepo 590e0eb..94ad27e master -> origin/master john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$git checkout master Already on 'master' Your branch is behind 'origin/master' by 1 commit, and can be fast-forwarded. john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ \end{code} As you can see, we are told that our branch is currently one commit behind that of \textbf{origin/master}. If we want to update our \textbf{master} branch in the submodule, we need to \emph{pull} our changes in, just like a \textbf{real} Git repository. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$git pull Updating 590e0eb..94ad27e Fast-forward newfile4 | 1 + 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) create mode 100644 newfile4 john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 newfile4 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$cd .. \end{code} Now let us see what happens if we try to update the module. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git submodule update Submodule path 'tester': checked out '590e0eb79bc5ba0bc09f611392e643f676b00a04' john@satsuki:~/coderepo$cd tester john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$\end{code} Our new changes have disappeared. How odd! Well actually not really. As we stated earlier, when we committed our \texttt{.gitmodules} file along with the \texttt{tester} directory, we not only committed the fact that we required a submodule, we also committed the exact point we wanted that submodule to point to. If we want to change this, then we must commit that as a change. It may seem a little odd that we have to jump through these hoops to get an update to an upstream project, but if you think about it, it actually makes a lot of sense. It means that anyone cloning our repository is sure to get a version of the submodule that we have decided is right for the project. So keeping this in mind, let us walk through a quick example of how we would finish the job and commit a new version of the submodule. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ cd tester/ john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$git pull You are not currently on a branch, so I cannot use any 'branch..merge' in your configuration file. Please specify which remote branch you want to use on the command line and try again (e.g. 'git pull '). See git-pull(1) for details. john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ \end{code} Interesting! What has happened here is that by performing the \texttt{git submodule update} command, we effectively asked Git to checkout a commit. Remember in the past we talked about detached HEAD? This is exactly what Git has done. A submodule spends most of it's life in a detached HEAD state. As we tell Git that we must have the submodule at a specific commit, it means that Git checks out a commit, rather than a branch. If you think about it, this makes sense, we do not want the contents of the module \emph{changing}. So to bring our module up to date, we need to first checkout master. Then we can issue our \texttt{git pull}. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$git checkout master Previous HEAD position was 590e0eb... Work on tester nf3 Switched to branch 'master' john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ git pull Already up-to-date. \end{code} Oh? Should we not have seen some commits pulled in here? Actually, no. We pulled the changes into master earlier, when we ran the \texttt{git pull}. When the module reverted to the earlier commit, \textbf{590e0eb}, it did not affect the master branch at all, as we simply checked out a single commit. So by swiching to \textbf{master}, we have already altered the contents of the submodule directory, as can be seen below. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 newfile4 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ cd .. john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git status # On branch master # Changes not staged for commit: # (use "git add ..." to update what will be committed) # (use "git checkout -- ..." to discard changes in working directory) # # modified: tester (new commits) # no changes added to commit (use "git add" and/or "git commit -a") john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} All we need to do now is to commit the submodule changes into the repository and check that the update yields the new file. \begin{code} john@satsuki:~/coderepo$git commit -a -m 'Up revd upstream module' [master 022a163] Up revd upstream module 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ git submodule update john@satsuki:~/coderepo$cd tester/ john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$ ls newfile1 newfile2 newfile3 newfile4 test.sh john@satsuki:~/coderepo/tester$cd .. john@satsuki:~/coderepo$ \end{code} As you can see, submodules can be rather useful. You can even make changes to the repository in the submodule and commit them locally to perhaps keep changes that you want to make to the submodule. As this is a Git repository in its own right, you can merge \emph{upstream} changes in too! Remember though that if you did make changes, and you committed them to the submodule, if you then issued a \texttt{git submodule update} without first committing your changes in the superproject, your commit would be lost. Of course nothing in Git is ever really lost, but it would be prudent of you to always keep changes you make to submodules in a branch, that way they are easy to bring back if you make a mistake like the one described. With that all said and done, we have finished our tour of the major portions of Git. What follows in the next chapter are some other points that are added more for information on what \textbf{can} be done with Git. \clearpage \section{Summary - John's Notes} \subsection{Commands} \begin{itemize} \item\texttt{git apply } - Applies a patch to the working tree \item\texttt{git reflog show } - Show the reflog only for the specified branch \item\texttt{git format-patch ..} - Create a set of patches of each commit between two points \item\texttt{git am } - Apply a specific patch containing a \emph{format-patch} file \item\texttt{git bisect start} - Begin a bisect session \item\texttt{git bisect good } - Mark a reference as good, during a \texttt{git bisect} \item\texttt{git bisect bad } - Mark a reference as bad, during a \texttt{git bisect} \item\texttt{git bisect start } - Start a bisect session between two known points \item\texttt{git bisect run } - Start an automated run of the bisect tool \item\texttt{git filter-branch --index-filter 'git rm --cached \newline --ignore-unmatch ' HEAD} - Rewrites the current branch to remove file \item\texttt{git filter-branch --subdirectory-filter } - Rewrites the current branch to make subdirectory directory the root of the branch \item\texttt{git fetch +:} - Creates a local branch from the remote branch existing in a remote repository \item\texttt{git branch -m } - Move or rename a branch from old to ne \item\texttt{git bundle create } - Create a bundle file in filename, containing all the objects and references from branch. \item\texttt{git submodule add } - Add a submodule at the directory specified by path \item\texttt{git submodule init} - Initialise any submodules in the super project \item\texttt{git submodule update} - Pull all submodules back to the points that have previously been committed to \end{itemize} \subsection{Terminology} \begin{itemize} \index{Terminology!Patching}\item\textbf{Patching} - A method of distributing changes from someone elses repository without having a line of communication between the two, or without a user having access to commit into the destination repository \index{Terminology!Bundle}\item\textbf{Bundle} - A type of archive file that hold objects and commits and can be pulled from \index{Terminology!Bisect}\item\textbf{Bisect} - A way of progressively searching through a repository to find where bugs were introduced \index{Terminology!Filtering}\item\textbf{Filtering} - Takes a branch and rewrites it according to a set of rules \index{Terminology!Submodule}\item\textbf{Submodule} - Incorporating a remotely reachable project as a subdirectory of a superproject \index{Terminology!Superproject}\item\textbf{Superproject} - A Git repository containing one or more submodules \end{itemize}