![]() ![]() If you do that with regular shell commands, Git will able to handle this but it's always a good idea to use git specific commands for this, such as : git mv Anyway, regardless of git and on the strict filesystem point of view, both these operations would have been totally equivalent (we don't care about inodes or such). For instance, if it detects, within a single commit, both a file deletion and the spawning of a new file having the exact same content, then git will assume it's a file renaming, even if the user actually has really deleted then recreated the file. ![]() If this filename changes, this breaks the lineage of its own history.įortunately, git is aware of this and is provided with many heuristics that let it fall back on its feets. The drawback of this is that the correlation between two versions of a single given file is based on its filename. The branches are materialized by the fact that each commit references its own parent(s), just like a linked list. In fact, git just don't have to remember the event's history. This enables Git to be very efficient at comparing things, making the differentiation of two random commits really easy, even if they're totally unrelated. It does by storing the complete file list into a tree object, which in turn points at objects containing file contents (these objects happening to be the same on every commit if they don't change, so no duplicated data is stored implying no waste of space). Git works with "snapshots", which means that each time you commit, git actually stores the complete state of your working directory, independently of every other commit, even the parent one. So most likely, if you're positively sure that the commit is on the branch you were browsing and that it wasn't downstream, that is located AFTER the point you started to browse the branch (which can happen if you're in detached mode, checking out a particular commit at a given time), you file were once renamed, or deleted/recreated later. Generate patch (see section on generating patches). oneline or -patch can be used.The man page (or git documentation) is your friend : -followĬontinue listing the history of a file beyond renames (works only for a single file). ![]() O commit 2369465 (origin/master, origin/HEAD) Here's my portable solution (shell script which works on Windows too without additional install) which shows the differences from origin for all branches: git-fetch-logĪn example output: = branch If you want to see how many commit your local branches are ahead/behind compared to the branch you are pushing to: git for-each-ref -format="%(refname:short) %(push:track)" refs/heads Just as we have " %(upstream)" to report the " for each ref, this patch adds " %(push)" to match " supports the same tracking format modifiers as upstream (because you may want to know, for example, which branches have commits to push). With this patch, you can just do: git rebase than typing out the full name.Ĭommit 29bc885 adds: for-each-ref: accept " %(push)" format You may push to your fork from multiple machines, requiring you to integrate the changes from the push destination, rather than upstream. Pushed yet: git log as a more complicated example, imagine that you normally pull changes from origin/master (which you set as your and push changes to your fork (e.g., as myfork/topic). There isn't a shorthand for the latter, but it's useful to have.įor instance, you may want to know which commits you haven't In a triangular workflow, each branch may have two distinct points of interest: the that you normally pull from, and the destination that you normally push to. (Merged by Junio C Hamano - gitster - in commit c4a8354, )Ĭommit adfe5d0 explains: sha1_name: implement shorthand Git 2.5+ (Q2 2015) introduces a new shortcut for that: commit 29bc885, commit 3dbe9db, commit adfe5d0, commit 48c5847, commit a1ad0eb, commit e291c75, commit 979cb24, commit 1ca41a1, commit 3a429d0, commit a9f9f8c, commit 8770e6f, commit da66b27, commit f052154, commit 9e3751d, commit ee2499f, and commit e41bf35 by Jeff King ( peff). The branch at the remote can be, again, origin/xxx or even anotherUpstreamRepo/yyy. It is that remote-tracking branch that counts when seeking unpushed commits: the one that tracks the branch at the remote where the local branch would be pushed to. ![]() Those are set by branch.*.pushremote for the current branch along with the global remote.pushDefault value. The upstream branch for master might be origin/master, but it could push to the remote tracking branch origin/xxx or even anotherUpstreamRepo/yyy. All the other answers talk about "upstream" (the branch you pull from).īut a local branch can push to a different branch than the one it pulls from.Ī master might not push to the remote-tracking branch " origin/master". ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |