* A note from the maintainer
@ 2006-10-24 9:16 Junio C Hamano
2006-10-24 9:37 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2006-10-24 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Since there seem to be many new people on the git list, I
thought it might be worthwhile to talk about how git.git is
managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list.
The development is primarily done on this mailing list you are
reading right now.
If you have patches, please send them to the list, following
Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
The list is available at various public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel as well. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git
[jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
site? It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
page to get to the latest]
* Repositories and branches.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
It is mirrored at Pasky's repo.or.cz as well.
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one is meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
I would have liked. It also contains some helper scripts I
use to maintain it.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The script to auto-maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh script, if you are interested.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are reasonably
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.4.3 done on Oct 18th.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are typically named with four dotted decimal, named after the
feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
v1.4.3.2 was done tonight. Usually new development will never
go to this branch. This branch is also pulled into "master" to
propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often you
found your own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on
"master", however. Instead, it is forked into a separate topic
branch from the tip of "master", and first tested in isolation;
I may make minimum fixups at this point. Usually there are a
handful such topic branches that are running ahead of "master"
in git.git repository. I do not publish the tip of these
branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry
about and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category with "master". In general it should always
contain the tip of "master". They may not be quite production
ready, but are expected to work more or less without major
breakage. I usually use "next" version of git for my own work.
"next" is where new and exciting things take place.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (that means
the topics that have been merged into "next" are not rebased).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining
topic branches. The topic branches and "pu" are subject to
rebasing in general. Especially "pu" is almost always rewound
to the tip of "next" and reconstructed to contain the remaining
topic branches. What this means is that immediately after
cloning from git.git, it is advisable to mark "pu" in your
remotes/origin that it does not necessarily fast-forwards, like
this:
$ cat .git/remotes/origin
URL: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
Pull: refs/heads/master:refs/heads/origin
Pull: refs/heads/maint:refs/heads/maint
Pull: refs/heads/next:refs/heads/next
Pull: +refs/heads/pu:refs/heads/pu
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". This is done by:
git checkout next
git pull . that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is _expected_ to be tweaked and fixed
to perfection before it is merged to "master". It is done by:
git checkout master
git pull . that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" _is_ such a guarantee), or even
in _any_ future release. There even was a case that a topic
needed a few reverting before graduating to "master".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2006-10-24 9:16 Junio C Hamano
@ 2006-10-24 9:37 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2006-10-24 9:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> * Mailing list.
>
> The development is primarily done on this mailing list you are
> reading right now.
>
> If you have patches, please send them to the list, following
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
>
> The list is available at various public sites as well:
>
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
It is also available via GMane NNTP (mail to news) interface as
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
so you can read it using your favourite news reader, without need
to be subscribed to mailing list.
It is better to send patches via email, not via news as 1.) news reader are
more likely to munge whitespace, 2) mail<->news gateway might munge
whitespace on it's own, though.
--
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2007-01-02 3:31 Junio C Hamano
2007-01-02 3:47 ` Shawn O. Pearce
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-01-02 3:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
It has been a while since I sent this message out the last time,
and there seem to be some new people on the git list.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can
work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git
[jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
site? It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
page to get to the latest]
The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now. If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously
not perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
me.
The list from time to time gets messages that either
- state something incorrect, with a certain authoritative tone,
without doing minimum homework.
- try to rehash issues that have been ruled some time ago
without bringing anything new to the table,
I used to try responding to such messages quickly with pointers
to archived list messages and/or the name of the commit object
that settled the issue, in order to save other readers from
wasting time on them, but that has been a huge timesink for me,
so I'll stop doing so and simply ignore them.
This does not apply to messages from new people (the definition
of new is rather subjective --- if I cannot connect your name
with a specific contribution you made to the git community, you
are still new); I would welcome questions and comments from new
people on the list. They are good sources for us to learn which
parts of git's concepts are harder to learn and which
documentation can be improved.
The list is available at a few public sites as well:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
* Repositories and branches.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
It is mirrored at Pasky's repo.or.cz as well.
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one is meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
I would have liked. It also contains some helper scripts I
use to maintain it.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The script to auto-maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh script, if you are interested.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are reasonably
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.4.4 done on Nov 14th last year.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are typically named with four dotted decimal, named after the
feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
v1.4.4.3. Usually new development will never go to this branch.
This branch is also pulled into "master" to propagate the fixes
forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually
happen on "master", however. Instead, it is forked into a
separate topic branch from the tip of "master", and first tested
in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point. Usually
there are a handful such topic branches that are running ahead
of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the tip of
these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep
the number of branches that downstream developers need to worry
about and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category with "master". In general it should always
contain the tip of "master". They may not be quite production
ready, but are expected to work more or less without major
breakage. I usually use "next" version of git for my own work.
"next" is where new and exciting things take place.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (that means
the topics that have been merged into "next" are not rebased).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining
topic branches. The topic branches and "pu" are subject to
rebasing in general. Especially "pu" is almost always rewound
to the tip of "next" and reconstructed to contain the remaining
topic branches.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is _expected_ to be tweaked and fixed
to perfection before it is merged to "master". I do this with:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in _any_
future release. There even was a case that a topic needed a few
reverting before graduating to "master".
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2007-01-02 3:31 Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-01-02 3:47 ` Shawn O. Pearce
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Shawn O. Pearce @ 2007-01-02 3:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox•net> wrote:
> I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
> all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
> obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously
> not perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
> anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
> was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
> me.
Though a contributor should probably check the `maint`, `master`,
`next` or `pu` branches of git.git before sending a reminder.
Often we find that you have accepted a patch without comment (as
the patch is obviously correct and nobody else had a reason to
comment on it). In this case the patch will just appear in one of
the git.git branches, with no email indicating that.
--
Shawn.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2007-02-14 3:14 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.0 Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-02-16 22:31 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-02-17 2:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-02-16 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
It has been a while since I sent this message out the last time,
so it may be a good time to send it with updates again. There
seem to be some new people on the git list, especially now the
big release is out.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can
work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git
[jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
site? It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
page to get to the latest.]
The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now. If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously
not perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
This is mirrored at Pasky's site at
git://repo.or.cz/git.git/
but the first has a few hours mirroring delay after I publish
updates, and the latter, being a mirror of former, lags behind
it further. Immediately after I publish to the primary
repository at kernel.org, I also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people would have better lack with the last one (but
the last repository does not have "html", "man" and "todo"
branches, described next).
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
Starting from 1.5.0, the top-level documentation page has links
to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are reasonably
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.5.0 done on Feb 14th this year. The
codename for that release is not "snog".
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are typically named with four dotted decimal, named after the
feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
v1.4.4.4, and I am expecting to cut v1.5.0.1 sometime soon.
Usually new development will never go to this branch. This
branch is also merged into "master" to propagate the fixes
forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, it is forked into
a separate topic branch from the tip of "master", and first
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general it should always contain the tip of
"master". They might not be quite production ready, but are
expected to work more or less without major breakage. I usually
use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot be
_that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (that means
the topics that have been merged into "next" are not rebased).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master". However, being in
"next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release (being
in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found
seriously broken and reverted), or even in any future release.
There even were cases that topics needed a few reverting before
graduating to "master", or a topic that already was in "next"
were reverted from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them
later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
project, which is found at:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
gitk -- this file is maintained by Paul Packerras, at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Packerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Jakub Narebski and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2007-02-16 22:31 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-02-17 2:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-02-23 6:03 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2007-02-17 2:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Many active members of development community hang around on #git
> IRC channel. Its log is available at:
>
> http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git
>
> [jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
> site? It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
> page to get to the latest.]
[jes: just stumbled over it:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=]
Ciao,
Dscho
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2007-02-17 2:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
@ 2007-02-23 6:03 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-02-23 6:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Johannes Schindelin; +Cc: git
Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx•de> writes:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
>> Many active members of development community hang around on #git
>> IRC channel. Its log is available at:
>>
>> http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_logs/git
>>
>> [jc: Does anybody know a shortcut for "Today's" page on this
>> site? It irritates me having to click the latest link on this
>> page to get to the latest.]
>
> [jes: just stumbled over it:
> http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git?date=]
This (or its variant, just removing "?date=" at the end) seems
to work most of the time, except for close to day boundary. I
do not know why.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2007-04-04 9:12 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.1 Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-04-04 18:26 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-05-20 9:54 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-04-04 18:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Now a new feature release is out, it's time to welcome new
people to the list. This message talks about how git.git is
managed, and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now. If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually read all patches posted to the list, and follow almost
all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously
not perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from
anybody for three days, that is a very good indication that it
was dropped on the floor --- please do not hesitate to remind
me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
This is mirrored at Pasky's site at
git://repo.or.cz/git.git/
but the first has a few hours mirroring delay after I publish
updates, and the latter, being a mirror of former, lags behind
it further. Immediately after I publish to the primary
repository at kernel.org, I also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people would have better luck with the last one (but
the last repository does not have "html", "man" and "todo"
branches, described next).
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.5.1 done on April 4th this year.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.0.7.
New features never goes to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are not rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in out of "git log next" output).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master". Similarly to the
above I do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed a few
reverting before graduating to "master", or a topic that already
was in "next" were reverted from "next" because fatal flaws were
found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
project, which is found at:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
gitk -- this file is maintained by Paul Packerras, at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Packerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Jakub Narebski and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2007-04-04 18:26 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-05-20 9:54 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-05-20 9:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
people to the list. This message talks about how git.git is managed,
and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now. If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people would have better luck with the latter one, but it
does not have "html" and "man" branches (described below).
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.1") if we have
huge backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.5.2 done on May 20th this year.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.1.6.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are not rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
hot and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
project, which is found at:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
gitk -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Jakub Narebski, Peter Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2007-09-02 6:31 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.3 Junio C Hamano
@ 2007-09-02 6:34 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2007-09-02 6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
people to the list. This message talks about how git.git is managed,
and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now. If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.1") if we have
huge backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.5.3 done on Sep 2nd this year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always as
stable as any of the released versions, if not more stable.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.2.5.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
Note that being in "next" does not mean the change will be in
the next feature release.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are not rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
However, being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
project, which is found at:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
gitk -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, and
Rene Scharfe on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin and Johannes Sixt for their effort to
move things forward on the Windows front. Although my
repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
can work from the same codebase.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2008-01-08 8:57 Junio C Hamano
2008-01-08 9:57 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-01-08 8:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Now a new maitenance release is out and we are reasonably in a
good shape to expect smooth progress toward the next feature
release, it's a good time to welcome new people to the list.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can
work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now. If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.5.3 done on Sep 2nd last year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.3.8,
made tonight. New features never go to this branch. This
branch is also merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are never rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
project, which is found at:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
gitk -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
Réne Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin and Johannes Sixt for their effort to
move things forward on the Windows front. Although my
repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
can work from the same codebase.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2008-01-08 8:57 Junio C Hamano
@ 2008-01-08 9:57 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-01-08 10:03 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2008-01-08 9:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
> * IRC and Mailing list
> When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
> gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
>
> as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
> gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Isn't it better to give Message-ID (perhaps with addition to
some archive URLs)? This way one can search his/her own mail
archive; also (I think) all git mail archives support finding
article with given Message-ID (e.g. http://mid.gmane.org/<msg-id>
for GMane).
> * Repositories, branches and documentation.
> There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
> source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
> add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
> hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
> an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
> git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.
What about "offcuts" branch?
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2008-01-08 9:57 ` Jakub Narebski
@ 2008-01-08 10:03 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-01-08 10:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail•com> writes:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
>
>> * IRC and Mailing list
>
>> When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
>> gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
>>
>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
>>
>> as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
>> gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
>
> Isn't it better to give Message-ID (perhaps with addition to
> some archive URLs)?
Then please do so. I have no problem with that.
But I am talking about practices of people who give pointer to
list archives as URL in this section, and I am just sick and
tired of seeing references to marc.info that does not give you
useful threaded interface.
> What about "offcuts" branch?
What about it? It is not that relevant to people new to the
community.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2008-02-02 4:35 Junio C Hamano
2008-02-02 11:06 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-02-02 4:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
people to the list. This message talks about how git.git is managed,
and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on this mailing list
you are reading right now. If you have patches, please send
them to the list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list so it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.1") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that himself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was v1.5.4 done on Feb 2nd this year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was v1.5.3.8.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
I judge the quality of topic branches, taking advices from the
mailing list discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea
but obviously is broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing
testsuite)" and then with some more work (either by the original
contributor or help from other people on the list) becomes "more
or less done and can now be tested by wider audience". Luckily,
most of them start out in the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The above three branches, "master", "maint" and "next" are never
rewound, so you should be able to safely track them (this
automatically means the topics that have been merged into "next"
are never rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you
are interested in from the output of "git log next").
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
git-gui/ -- this subdirectory comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui
project, which is found at:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
gitk -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
Réne Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin and Johannes Sixt for their effort to
move things forward on the Windows front. Although my
repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
can work from the same codebase.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2008-02-02 4:35 Junio C Hamano
@ 2008-02-02 11:06 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2008-02-02 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
> Now a new feature release is out, it's a good time to welcome new
> people to the list. This message talks about how git.git is managed,
> and how you can work with it.
> There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
> source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
Actually there are five: you didn't mention "offcuts" branch,
nor wrote what this branch is about (for example how it differs
from "pu").
> gitk -- this file is maintained by Paul Mackerras, at:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
It is gitk-git/ subdirectory now (why not simply gitk/ ?).
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2008-02-17 9:16 Junio C Hamano
2008-03-09 10:57 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-02-17 9:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.5.4 done on Feb 2nd this year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.4.2.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front. Although my
repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
can work from the same codebase.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2008-02-17 9:16 Junio C Hamano
@ 2008-03-09 10:57 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-03-09 10:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.de/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.5.4 done on Feb 2nd this year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.4.4.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front. Although my
repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
can work from the same codebase.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2008-04-09 9:44 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-04-09 9:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.5.5 done on Apr 7th this year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.4.5.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front. Although my
repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
can work from the same codebase.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2008-06-18 23:24 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.6 Junio C Hamano
@ 2008-06-19 7:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-07-14 5:51 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-06-19 7:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.5.6 done on Jun 18th this year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.5.4.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front. Although my
repository does not have much from the effort of MinGW team,
I expect a merge into mainline will happen so that everybody
can work from the same codebase.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2008-06-19 7:24 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
@ 2008-07-14 5:51 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-07-14 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.5.6 done on Jun 18th this year. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.6.3.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front. Most of the fruits
from their porting efforts have been merged to the mainline git.git
repository in 1.6.0 release.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2008-08-17 21:16 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.0 Junio C Hamano
@ 2008-08-17 23:58 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-08-17 23:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.6.0 done on Aug 17th 2008. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.5.6.5.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front. Most of the fruits
from their porting efforts have been merged to the mainline git.git
repository in 1.6.0 release.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2008-12-25 6:48 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2008-12-25 6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not
about the source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The
first one was meant to contain TODO list for me, but I am not
good at maintaining such a list and it is not as often updated as
it could/should be. It also contains some helper scripts I use
to maintain git.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use an update hook to automate
a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.6.1 done on Dec 24th 2008. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.0.6.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), or even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
Starting from v1.5.0, "master" and "maint" have release notes
for the next release in Documentation/RelNotes-* files, so that
I do not have to run around summarizing what happened just
before the release.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines who your changes should
be sent to. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate
fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to primary contributors
of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe and Jeff King on general implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, and Luben Tuikov on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentaton issues.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front. Most of the fruits
from their porting efforts have been merged to the mainline git.git
repository in 1.6.0 release.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, but countless others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
I also keep a copy of it at http://members.cox.net/junkio/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2009-03-04 19:52 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2009-03-04 19:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant
to contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a
list and it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to
keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's
in/cooking" messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use a post-update hook to
automate a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.6.2 done on Mar 3rd 2009. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.1.3.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
usually have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), nor even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed
changes should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would
delegate fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary
contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general
implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta
on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- Charles Bailey for git-mergetool (and Theodore Ts'o for creating
the tool).
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, but countless
others as well.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2009-05-07 7:09 Junio C Hamano
2009-05-07 13:40 ` Baz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2009-05-07 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant
to contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a
list and it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to
keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's
in/cooking" messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use a post-update hook to
automate a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.4") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.6.3 done on May 6th 2009. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.2.5.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
usually have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), nor even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed
changes should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would
delegate fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary
contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
Ren辿 Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general
implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta
on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
Ts'o for creating it in the first place).
- David Aguilar for git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King,
Alex Riesen and countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2009-05-07 7:09 Junio C Hamano
@ 2009-05-07 13:40 ` Baz
2009-05-07 16:30 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Baz @ 2009-05-07 13:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Apologies for not quoting the mail I'm replying to, but gmail would
just make the character encoding issues worse.
Junio, Rene Scharfe's name appears incorrectly in the MaintNotes
message - the mail was sent as iso-2022-jp. Previous editions of this
mail (like the one on 4th March) were in utf-8. Maybe a consequence of
the recent change you made to your emacs setup?
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/115746
Just mentioning it in case it causes problems with patch mails down the line.
Cheers,
Baz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2009-05-07 13:40 ` Baz
@ 2009-05-07 16:30 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2009-05-07 16:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Baz; +Cc: git
Baz <brian.ewins@gmail•com> writes:
> Junio, Rene Scharfe's name appears incorrectly in the MaintNotes
> message - the mail was sent as iso-2022-jp. Previous editions of this
> mail (like the one on 4th March) were in utf-8. Maybe a consequence of
> the recent change you made to your emacs setup?
Thanks for not just complaining but giving me a clue where to look into.
I very much appreciate it. Will find time to look into it before sending
any more message with a non-ascii character.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2009-07-29 21:15 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2009-07-29 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git community.
This message talks about how git.git is managed, and how you can work
with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Many active members of development community hang around on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development however is primarily done on the git mailing list
(git@vger•kernel.org). If you have patches, please send them to the
list, following Documentation/SubmittingPatches.
I usually try to read all patches posted to the list, and follow
almost all the discussions on the list, unless the topic is about an
obscure corner that I do not personally use. But I am obviously not
perfect. If you sent a patch that you did not hear from anybody for
three days, that is a very good indication that it was dropped on the
floor --- please do not hesitate to remind me.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant
to contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a
list and it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to
keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's
in/cooking" messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the
tip of the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be
visible at kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are
found in "todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It
is a good demonstration of how to use a post-update hook to
automate a task.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have
hugely backward incompatible feature updates in the future to keep
an older release alive; I may not, but the distributed nature of
git means any volunteer can run a stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well
tested and ready to be used in a production setting. There
could occasionally be minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs
but they are not expected to be anything major, and more
importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every now and
then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The
last such release was 1.6.4 done on Jul 29th 2009. You
can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more
stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off
from "master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes
after a feature release are applied to this branch and
maintenance releases are cut from it. The maintenance releases
are named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to; the last such release was 1.6.3.4.
New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master".
A new development, either initiated by myself or more often by
somebody who found his or her own itch to scratch, does not
usually happen on "master", however. Instead, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master", and it first is
tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups at this point.
Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are running
ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the
tip of these branches in my public repository, however, partly
to keep the number of branches that downstream developers need
to worry about low, and primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is
broken in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then
with some more work (either by the original contributor's effort or
help from other people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can
now be tested by wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in
the latter, better shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the
latter category. In general, the branch always contains the tip
of "master". It might not be quite rock-solid production ready,
but is expected to work more or less without major breakage. I
usually use "next" version of git for my own work, so it cannot
be _that_ broken to prevent me from pushing the changes out.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and
"next" usually will not be either (this automatically means the
topics that have been merged into "next" are usually not
rebased, and you can find the tip of topic branches you are
interested in from the output of "git log next"). You should be
able to safely track them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next"
will be rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving
topics. The commit that replaces the tip of the "next" will
usually have the identical tree, but it will have different ancestry
from the tip of "master". An announcement will be made to warn
people about such a rebasing.
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of
topic branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are
only in "pu", are subject to rebasing in general. By the above
definition of how "next" works, you can tell that this branch
will contain quite experimental and obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it
graduates to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so
good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be tweaked and fixed to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master"
can be expected to stay very stable). Similarly to the above, I
do it with this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the
next release (being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it
is later found seriously broken and reverted), nor even in any
future release. There even were cases that topics needed
reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed
changes should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would
delegate fixes and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary
contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they
have their own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the
current shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list
regulars whose help I have relied on and expect to continue
relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
Ren辿 Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general
implementation issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta
on gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
Ts'o for creating it in the first place).
- David Aguilar for git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort
to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o,
Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King,
Alex Riesen and countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2010-01-01 0:09 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2010-01-01 0:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger•kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.6.6 done on Dec 23rd 2009. You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.6.5.7. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master". A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however. Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point. Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category. In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage. I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out. The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics. The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general. By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version). Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release. There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general implementation
issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
Ts'o for creating it in the first place).
- David Aguilar for git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2010-02-13 1:24 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2010-02-13 1:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger•kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.7.0 done on Feb 12, 2010. You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.6.6.2. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master". A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however. Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point. Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category. In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage. I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out. The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics. The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general. By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version). Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release. There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
Scharfe, Jeff King and Johannes Sixt on general implementation
issues.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
Ts'o for creating it in the first place).
- David Aguilar for git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2010-07-21 22:18 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2010-07-21 22:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger•kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.7.2 done on Jul 21, 2010. You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.1.1. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master". A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however. Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point. Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category. In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage. I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out. The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics. The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general. By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version). Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release. There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes Sixt,
and Sverre Rabbelier on general implementation issues and reviews
on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
Ts'o for creating it in the first place).
- David Aguilar for git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer...
@ 2010-09-19 1:28 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2010-09-19 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger•kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one.
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.7.3 done on Sep 18/19, 2010. You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.2.3. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master". A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however. Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point. Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category. In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage. I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out. The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics. The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general. By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version). Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release. There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from Shawn Pearce's git-gui project:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, Ren辿
Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes Sixt,
and Sverre Rabbelier on general implementation issues and reviews
on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff and Frank Lichtenheld on cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields on documentation (and countless others for
proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool (and Theodore
Ts'o for creating it in the first place).
- David Aguilar for git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt and others for their effort to
move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on
portability; especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason
Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann, Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and
countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2011-01-31 5:51 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-01-31 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* IRC and Mailing list
Members of the development community can sometimes be found on #git
IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. If you have
patches, please send them to the list address (git@vger•kernel.org).
following Documentation/SubmittingPatches. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages there, and the convention is to Cc:
everybody involved, so you don't even have to say "Please Cc: me, I am
not subscribed".
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting, but
it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please do not
hesitate to send a reminder message politely in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have enough
mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and it often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending such a
reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as
gmane newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "todo", "html" and "man". The first one was meant to
contain TODO list for me, but I am not good at maintaining such a list and
it is in an abandoned state. The branch mostly is used to keep some
helper scripts I use to maintain git and the regular "What's cooking"
messages these days.
The "html" and "man" are autogenerated documentation from the tip of the
"master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has
links to documentation of older releases.
The script to maintain these two documentation branches are found in the
"todo" branch as dodoc.sh, if you are interested. It is a demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may add more maintenance
branches (e.g. "maint-1.6.3") if we have hugely backward incompatible
feature updates in the future to keep an older release alive; I may not,
but the distributed nature of git means any volunteer can run a
stable-tree like that herself.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. There could occasionally be
minor breakages or brown paper bag bugs but they are not expected to be
anything major, and more importantly quickly and trivially fixable. Every
now and then, a "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and
they typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.7.4 done on Jan 30, 2011. You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.3.5. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A trivial and safe enhancement goes directly on top of "master". A new
development, either initiated by myself or more often by somebody who
found his or her own itch to scratch, does not usually happen on "master",
however. Instead, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master", and it first is tested in isolation; I may make minimum fixups
at this point. Usually there are a handful such topic branches that are
running ahead of "master" in git.git repository. I do not publish the tip
of these branches in my public repository, however, partly to keep the
number of branches that downstream developers need to worry about low, and
primarily because I am lazy.
The quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions. Some of them start out as "good idea but obviously is broken
in some areas (e.g. breaks the existing testsuite)" and then with some
more work (either by the original contributor's effort or help from other
people on the list) becomes "more or less done and can now be tested by
wider audience". Luckily, most of them start out in the latter, better
shape.
The "next" branch is to merge and test topic branches in the latter
category. In general, the branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work
more or less without major breakage. I usually use "next" version of git
for my own work, so it cannot be _that_ broken to prevent me from
integrating and pushing the changes out. The "next" branch is where new
and exciting things take place.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either (this automatically means the topics that have
been merged into "next" are usually not rebased, and you can find the tip
of topic branches you are interested in from the output of "git log
next"). You should be able to safely build on top of them.
After a feature release is made from "master", however, "next" will be
rebuilt from the tip of "master" using the surviving topics. The commit
that replaces the tip of the "next" will usually have the identical tree,
but it will have different ancestry from the tip of "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remainder of topic
branches. The "pu" branch, and topic branches that are only in "pu", are
subject to rebasing in general. By the above definition of how "next"
works, you can tell that this branch will contain quite experimental and
obviously broken stuff.
When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in testable shape, it graduates
to "next". I do this with:
git checkout next
git merge that-topic-branch
Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out to be not so good and
the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before
it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be expected to stay more
stable than any released version). Similarly to the above, I do it with
this:
git checkout master
git merge that-topic-branch
git branch -d that-topic-branch
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next release
(being in "master" is such a guarantee, unless it is later found seriously
broken and reverted), nor even in any future release. There even were
cases that topics needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating
to "master", or a topic that already was in "next" were entirely reverted
from "next" because fatal flaws were found in them later.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus on general design issues.
- Linus, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre, René
Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes Sixt,
Sverre Rabbelier and Thomas Rast on general implementation issues
and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A Note from the Maintainer
@ 2011-04-25 21:05 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-04-25 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work". "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken". It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to do;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen;
- what you expected to see; and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".
The "html" and "man" are auto-generated documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has links to
documentation of older releases.
The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script to maintain the two documentation branches are
found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration of how to
use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.5 done on
Apr 24, 2011. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is
always more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.4.5. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master", or a
topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because fatal
flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2011-08-24 23:51 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-08-24 23:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work". "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken". It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to do;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen;
- what you expected to see; and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
Immediately after I publish to the primary repository at kernel.org, I
also push into an alternate here:
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter one (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".
The "html" and "man" are auto-generated documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is extracted to be visible at
kernel.org at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it has links to
documentation of older releases.
The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script to maintain the two documentation branches are
found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration of how to
use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.6 done on
June 26, 2011. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is
always more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.6.1. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master", or a
topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because fatal
flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2011-10-05 2:22 Junio C Hamano
2011-10-15 5:47 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-10-05 2:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work". "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken". It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to do;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen;
- what you expected to see; and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
https://github.com/git/git
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter two (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".
The "html" and "man" are preformatted documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is visible at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
http://git-core.googlecode.com/git-history/html/git.html
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it may have
links to documentation of older releases.
The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script that was used to maintain the two documentation
branches are found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.7 done on
Sept 30, 2011. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.6.4. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund and others for their
effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2011-10-05 2:22 Junio C Hamano
@ 2011-10-15 5:47 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
2011-10-16 7:24 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Martin von Zweigbergk @ 2011-10-15 5:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano, Paul Mackerras; +Cc: git
On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I don't seem to be able to fetch from there. Is it still supposed to be there?
Martin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2011-10-15 5:47 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
@ 2011-10-16 7:24 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-10-16 7:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Martin von Zweigbergk; +Cc: Paul Mackerras, git
Martin von Zweigbergk <martin.von.zweigbergk@gmail•com> writes:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 7:22 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
>> - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
>>
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
>
> I don't seem to be able to fetch from there. Is it still supposed to be there?
Unfortunately k.org is _slowly_ coming back to life.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2011-10-24 15:32 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2011-10-24 15:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to ask "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites as well:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
and some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop your
bug report with just "git does not work". "I tried to do X but it did not
work" is not much better, neither is "I tried to do X and git did Y, which
is broken". It often is that what you expect is _not_ what other people
expect, and chances are that what you expect is very different from what
people who have worked on git have expected (otherwise, the behavior
would have been changed to match that expectation long time ago).
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to do;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen;
- what you expected to see; and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repository is at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
https://github.com/git/git
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
Impatient people might have better luck with the latter two (there are a
few other mirrors I push into at sourceforge and github as well).
Their gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
There are three branches in git.git repository that are not about the
source tree of git: "html", "man", and "todo".
The "html" and "man" are preformatted documentation from the tip of
the "master" branch; the tip of "html" is visible at:
http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/
http://git-core.googlecode.com/git-history/html/git.html
The above URL is the top-level documentation page, and it may have
links to documentation of older releases.
The "todo" branch was originally meant to contain a TODO list for me,
but is mostly used to keep some helper scripts I use to maintain git.
For example, the script that was used to maintain the two documentation
branches are found there as dodoc.sh, which may be a good demonstration
of how to use a post-update hook to automate a task after pushing into a
repository.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.7 done on
Sept 30, 2011. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.7.1. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid production ready, but is expected to work more or
less without major breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting
things take place. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to
perfection before it is merged to "master" (that's why "master" can be
expected to stay more stable than any released version).
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
* This document
The latest copy of this document is found in git.git repository,
on 'todo' branch, as MaintNotes.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9
@ 2012-01-27 21:31 Junio C Hamano
2012-01-27 21:41 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-01-27 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Linux Kernel
The latest feature release Git 1.7.9 is now available at the usual
places.
The release tarballs are found at:
http://code.google.com/p/git-core/downloads/list
and their SHA-1 checksums are:
ed51ef5ef250daaa6e98515cf2641820cd268d4c git-1.7.9.tar.gz
c7b1fa20dc501beb2cb5091dd24dbfd2a0013a0c git-htmldocs-1.7.9.tar.gz
1ca1fc430b2814f9e9cf82ec3bf7f2eaf5209b7a git-manpages-1.7.9.tar.gz
Also the following public repositories all have a copy of the v1.7.9
tag and the master branch that the tag points at:
url = git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
url = https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
url = git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git
url = git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core
url = https://github.com/gitster/git
Have fun.
Git v1.7.9 Release Notes
========================
Updates since v1.7.8
--------------------
* gitk updates accumulated since early 2011.
* git-gui updated to 0.16.0.
* git-p4 (in contrib/) updates.
* Git uses gettext to translate its most common interface messages
into the user's language if translations are available and the
locale is appropriately set. Distributors can drop new PO files
in po/ to add new translations.
* The code to handle username/password for HTTP transactions used in
"git push" & "git fetch" learned to talk "credential API" to
external programs to cache or store them, to allow integration with
platform native keychain mechanisms.
* The input prompts in the terminal use our own getpass() replacement
when possible. HTTP transactions used to ask for the username without
echoing back what was typed, but with this change you will see it as
you type.
* The internals of "revert/cherry-pick" have been tweaked to prepare
building more generic "sequencer" on top of the implementation that
drives them.
* "git rev-parse FETCH_HEAD" after "git fetch" without specifying
what to fetch from the command line will now show the commit that
would be merged if the command were "git pull".
* "git add" learned to stream large files directly into a packfile
instead of writing them into individual loose object files.
* "git checkout -B <current branch> <elsewhere>" is a more intuitive
way to spell "git reset --keep <elsewhere>".
* "git checkout" and "git merge" learned "--no-overwrite-ignore" option
to tell Git that untracked and ignored files are not expendable.
* "git commit --amend" learned "--no-edit" option to say that the
user is amending the tree being recorded, without updating the
commit log message.
* "git commit" and "git reset" re-learned the optimization to prime
the cache-tree information in the index, which makes it faster to
write a tree object out after the index entries are updated.
* "git commit" detects and rejects an attempt to stuff NUL byte in
the commit log message.
* "git commit" learned "-S" to GPG-sign the commit; this can be shown
with the "--show-signature" option to "git log".
* fsck and prune are relatively lengthy operations that still go
silent while making the end-user wait. They learned to give progress
output like other slow operations.
* The set of built-in function-header patterns for various languages
knows MATLAB.
* "git log --format='<format>'" learned new %g[nNeE] specifiers to
show information from the reflog entries when walking the reflog
(i.e. with "-g").
* "git pull" can be used to fetch and merge an annotated/signed tag,
instead of the tip of a topic branch. The GPG signature from the
signed tag is recorded in the resulting merge commit for later
auditing.
* "git log" learned "--show-signature" option to show the signed tag
that was merged that is embedded in the merge commit. It also can
show the signature made on the commit with "git commit -S".
* "git branch --edit-description" can be used to add descriptive text
to explain what a topic branch is about.
* "git fmt-merge-msg" learned to take the branch description into
account when preparing a merge summary that "git merge" records
when merging a local branch.
* "git request-pull" has been updated to convey more information
useful for integrators to decide if a topic is worth merging and
what is pulled is indeed what the requestor asked to pull,
including:
- the tip of the branch being requested to be merged;
- the branch description describing what the topic is about;
- the contents of the annotated tag, when requesting to pull a tag.
* "git pull" learned to notice 'pull.rebase' configuration variable,
which serves as a global fallback for setting 'branch.<name>.rebase'
configuration variable per branch.
* "git tag" learned "--cleanup" option to control how the whitespaces
and empty lines in tag message are cleaned up.
* "gitweb" learned to show side-by-side diff.
Also contains minor documentation updates and code clean-ups.
Fixes since v1.7.8
------------------
Unless otherwise noted, all the fixes since v1.7.8 in the maintenance
releases are contained in this release (see release notes to them for
details).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
2012-01-27 21:31 [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9 Junio C Hamano
@ 2012-01-27 21:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-01-27 21:43 ` What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27) Junio C Hamano
2012-02-02 20:50 ` [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9 Jakub Narebski
2 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-01-27 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
Some people seem to prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.9 done on
Jan 27, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.8.4. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast on general design and
implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre on pack issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason on
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras on gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain on git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann and Pete Wyckoff on git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe Bilotta on
gitweb.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast on
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard on Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27)
2012-01-27 21:31 [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9 Junio C Hamano
2012-01-27 21:41 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
@ 2012-01-27 21:43 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-01-28 5:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-02 20:50 ` [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9 Jakub Narebski
2 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-01-27 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Here are the topics that have been cooking. Commits prefixed with '-' are
only in 'pu' (proposed updates) while commits prefixed with '+' are in
'next'.
Now 1.7.9 is out, the development cycle for 1.7.10 will start shortly.
Here are the repositories that have my integration branches:
With maint, master, next, pu, todo:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
https://github.com/git/git
With only maint and master:
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core
With all the topics and integration branches:
https://github.com/gitster/git
The preformatted documentation in HTML and man format are found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
--------------------------------------------------
[New Topics]
* jl/submodule-re-add (2012-01-24) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-26 at 482553e)
+ submodule add: fix breakage when re-adding a deep submodule
Low-impact fix to an old issue.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* jn/svn-fe (2012-01-27) 44 commits
- vcs-svn/svndiff.c: squelch false "unused" warning from gcc
- Merge branch 'svn-fe' of git://repo.or.cz/git/jrn into jn/svn-fe
- vcs-svn: reset first_commit_done in fast_export_init
- Merge branch 'db/text-delta' into svn-fe
- vcs-svn: do not initialize report_buffer twice
- Merge branch 'db/text-delta' into svn-fe
- vcs-svn: avoid hangs from corrupt deltas
- vcs-svn: guard against overflow when computing preimage length
- Merge branch 'db/delta-applier' into db/text-delta
- vcs-svn: implement text-delta handling
- Merge branch 'db/delta-applier' into db/text-delta
- Merge branch 'db/delta-applier' into svn-fe
- vcs-svn: cap number of bytes read from sliding view
- test-svn-fe: split off "test-svn-fe -d" into a separate function
- vcs-svn: let deltas use data from preimage
- vcs-svn: let deltas use data from postimage
- vcs-svn: verify that deltas consume all inline data
- vcs-svn: implement copyfrom_data delta instruction
- vcs-svn: read instructions from deltas
- vcs-svn: read inline data from deltas
- vcs-svn: read the preimage when applying deltas
- vcs-svn: parse svndiff0 window header
- vcs-svn: skeleton of an svn delta parser
- vcs-svn: make buffer_read_binary API more convenient
- vcs-svn: learn to maintain a sliding view of a file
- Makefile: list one vcs-svn/xdiff object or header per line
- Merge branch 'db/svn-fe-code-purge' into svn-fe
- vcs-svn: drop obj_pool
- vcs-svn: drop treap
- vcs-svn: drop string_pool
- vcs-svn: pass paths through to fast-import
- Merge branch 'db/strbufs-for-metadata' into db/svn-fe-code-purge
- Merge branch 'db/length-as-hash' (early part) into db/svn-fe-code-purge
- Merge branch 'db/vcs-svn-incremental' into svn-fe
- vcs-svn: avoid using ls command twice
- vcs-svn: use mark from previous import for parent commit
- vcs-svn: handle filenames with dq correctly
- vcs-svn: quote paths correctly for ls command
- vcs-svn: eliminate repo_tree structure
- vcs-svn: add a comment before each commit
- vcs-svn: save marks for imported commits
- vcs-svn: use higher mark numbers for blobs
- vcs-svn: set up channel to read fast-import cat-blob response
- Merge commit 'v1.7.5' into svn-fe
Will merge early in the next cycle.
--------------------------------------------------
[Stalled]
* jc/advise-push-default (2011-12-18) 1 commit
- push: hint to use push.default=upstream when appropriate
Peff had a good suggestion outlining an updated code structure so that
somebody new can try to dip his or her toes in the development. Any
takers?
Waiting for a reroll.
* mh/ref-api-rest (2011-12-12) 35 commits
. repack_without_ref(): call clear_packed_ref_cache()
. read_packed_refs(): keep track of the directory being worked in
. is_refname_available(): query only possibly-conflicting references
. refs: read loose references lazily
. read_loose_refs(): take a (ref_entry *) as argument
. struct ref_dir: store a reference to the enclosing ref_cache
. sort_ref_dir(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. do_for_each_ref_in_dir*(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. add_entry(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. search_ref_dir(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. find_containing_direntry(): use (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. add_ref(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. read_packed_refs(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. find_ref(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. is_refname_available(): take (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. get_loose_refs(): return (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. get_packed_refs(): return (ref_entry *) instead of (ref_dir *)
. refs: wrap top-level ref_dirs in ref_entries
. get_ref_dir(): keep track of the current ref_dir
. do_for_each_ref(): only iterate over the subtree that was requested
. refs: sort ref_dirs lazily
. sort_ref_dir(): do not sort if already sorted
. refs: store references hierarchically
. refs.c: rename ref_array -> ref_dir
. struct ref_entry: nest the value part in a union
. check_refname_component(): return 0 for zero-length components
. free_ref_entry(): new function
. refs.c: reorder definitions more logically
. is_refname_available(): reimplement using do_for_each_ref_in_array()
. names_conflict(): simplify implementation
. names_conflict(): new function, extracted from is_refname_available()
. repack_without_ref(): reimplement using do_for_each_ref_in_array()
. do_for_each_ref_in_arrays(): new function
. do_for_each_ref_in_array(): new function
. do_for_each_ref(): correctly terminate while processesing extra_refs
I had to remove this temporarily out of 'pu' as I didn't want to deal with
merge conflicts with the mh/ref-clone-without-extra-refs topic that
removes yet another caller of add_extra_ref() that this series touches.
Will defer till the next cycle.
* ss/git-svn-prompt-sans-terminal (2012-01-04) 3 commits
- fixup! 15eaaf4
- git-svn, perl/Git.pm: extend Git::prompt helper for querying users
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-05 at 954f125)
+ perl/Git.pm: "prompt" helper to honor GIT_ASKPASS and SSH_ASKPASS
The bottom one has been replaced with a rewrite based on comments from
Ævar. The second one needs more work, both in perl/Git.pm and prompt.c, to
give precedence to tty over SSH_ASKPASS when terminal is available.
Will defer till the next cycle.
* nd/commit-ignore-i-t-a (2012-01-16) 2 commits
- commit, write-tree: allow to ignore CE_INTENT_TO_ADD while writing trees
- cache-tree: update API to take abitrary flags
May want to consider this as fixing an earlier UI mistake, and not as a
feature that devides the userbase.
Will defer till the next cycle.
--------------------------------------------------
[Cooking]
* jc/split-blob (2012-01-24) 6 commits
- chunked-object: streaming checkout
- chunked-object: fallback checkout codepaths
- bulk-checkin: support chunked-object encoding
- bulk-checkin: allow the same data to be multiply hashed
- new representation types in the packstream
- varint-in-pack: refactor varint encoding/decoding
Not ready.
I finished the streaming checkout codepath, but as explained in 127b177
(bulk-checkin: support chunked-object encoding, 2011-11-30), these are
still early steps of a long and painful journey. At least pack-objects and
fsck need to learn the new encoding for the series to be usable locally,
and then index-pack/unpack-objects needs to learn it to be used remotely.
Given that I heard a lot of noise that people want large files, and that I
was asked by somebody at GitTogether'11 privately for an advice on how to
pay developers (not me) to help adding necessary support, I am somewhat
dissapointed that the original patch series that was sent almost two
months ago still remains here without much comments and updates from the
developer community. I even made the interface to the logic that decides
where to split chunks easily replaceable, and I deliberately made the
logic in the original patch extremely stupid to entice others, especially
the "bup" fanboys, to come up with a better logic, thinking that giving
people an easy target to shoot for, they may be encouraged to help
out. The plan is not working :-(.
* jl/test-pause (2012-01-17) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at ee56335)
+ test-lib: add the test_pause convenience function
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* mh/ref-clone-without-extra-refs (2012-01-17) 4 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at 2e9645e)
+ write_remote_refs(): create packed (rather than extra) refs
+ add_packed_ref(): new function in the refs API.
+ ref_array: keep track of whether references are sorted
+ pack_refs(): remove redundant check
Looked reasonable; will hopefully help making mh/ref-api-rest simpler and
cleaner.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* mm/zsh-completion-regression-fix (2012-01-17) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 7bc2e0a)
+ bash-completion: don't add quoted space for ZSH (fix regression)
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
* ar/i18n-no-gettext (2012-01-27) 4 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-27 at 0ecf258)
+ i18n: Do not force USE_GETTEXT_SCHEME=fallthrough on NO_GETTEXT
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 694a94e)
+ i18n: Make NO_GETTEXT imply fallthrough scheme in shell l10n
+ add a Makefile switch to avoid gettext translation in shell scripts
+ git-sh-i18n: restructure the logic to compute gettext.sh scheme
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
* da/maint-mergetool-twoway (2012-01-23) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at f927323)
+ mergetool: Provide an empty file when needed
Caters to GUI merge backends that cannot merge two files without
a base by giving them an empty file as a "pretend" common ancestor.
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
* jc/maint-log-first-parent-pathspec (2012-01-19) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at fb2b35f)
+ Making pathspec limited log play nicer with --first-parent
A bugfix.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* ld/git-p4-branches-and-labels (2012-01-20) 5 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 9020ec4)
+ git-p4: label import fails with multiple labels at the same changelist
+ git-p4: add test for p4 labels
+ git-p4: importing labels should cope with missing owner
+ git-p4: cope with labels with empty descriptions
+ git-p4: handle p4 branches and labels containing shell chars
(this branch is used by va/git-p4-branch.)
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* va/git-p4-branch (2012-01-26) 4 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-26 at e67c52a)
+ t9801: do not overuse test_must_fail
+ git-p4: Change p4 command invocation
+ git-p4: Add test case for complex branch import
+ git-p4: Search for parent commit on branch creation
(this branch uses ld/git-p4-branches-and-labels.)
Rerolled and Acked.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* sp/smart-http-failure-to-push (2012-01-20) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at a892434)
+ remote-curl: Fix push status report when all branches fail
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* ks/sort-wildcard-in-makefile (2012-01-22) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at e2e0c1d)
+ t/Makefile: Use $(sort ...) explicitly where needed
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* tr/grep-l-with-decoration (2012-01-23) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 42b8795)
+ grep: fix -l/-L interaction with decoration lines
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* jc/pull-signed-tag (2012-01-23) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 4257553)
+ merge: use editor by default in interactive sessions
Per Linus's strong suggestion, sugarcoated (aka "taking blame for the
original UI screw-ups") so that it is easier for me to swallow and accept
a potentially huge backward incompatibility issue, "git merge" is made to
launch an editor to explain the merge in the merge commit by default in
interactive sessions.
I've updated the special-case environment variable to MERGE_AUTOEDIT that
scripts can set to "no" when they start. There is no plan to encourage
humans to keep using the historical behaviour, hence there is no support
for configuration variable (e.g. merge.autoedit) that can be set to 'no'.
Oh, also I updated the documentation a bit.
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
* nd/maint-refname-in-hierarchy-check (2012-01-11) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at acb5611)
+ Fix incorrect ref namespace check
Avoid getting confused by "ref/headxxx" and mistaking it as if it is under
the "refs/heads/" hierarchy.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* jc/advise-i18n (2011-12-22) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 6447013)
+ i18n of multi-line advice messages
Allow localization of advice messages that tend to be longer and
multi-line formatted. For now this is deliberately limited to advise()
interface and not vreportf() in general as touching the latter has
interactions with error() that has plumbing callers whose prefix "error: "
should never be translated.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* rr/sequencer (2012-01-11) 2 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at f349b56)
+ sequencer: factor code out of revert builtin
+ revert: prepare to move replay_action to header
Moving large chunk of code out of cherry-pick/revert for later reuse,
primarily to prepare for the next cycle.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* tr/maint-mailinfo (2012-01-16) 2 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at 278fae1)
+ mailinfo: with -b, keep space after [foo]
+ am: learn passing -b to mailinfo
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* pw/p4-view-updates (2012-01-11) 5 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at 8ca2c7b)
+ git-p4: add tests demonstrating spec overlay ambiguities
+ git-p4: adjust test to adhere to stricter useClientSpec
+ git-p4: clarify comment
+ git-p4: fix verbose comment typo
+ git-p4: only a single ... wildcard is supported
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* rs/diff-postimage-in-context (2012-01-06) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-09 at 9635032)
+ xdiff: print post-image for common records instead of pre-image
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
* cb/push-quiet (2012-01-08) 3 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at 4326dda)
+ t5541: avoid TAP test miscounting
+ fix push --quiet: add 'quiet' capability to receive-pack
+ server_supports(): parse feature list more carefully
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* nd/clone-detached (2012-01-24) 12 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-26 at 7b0cc8a)
+ clone: fix up delay cloning conditions
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at bee31c6)
+ push: do not let configured foreign-vcs permanently clobbered
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 9cab64e)
+ clone: print advice on checking out detached HEAD
+ clone: allow --branch to take a tag
+ clone: refuse to clone if --branch points to bogus ref
+ clone: --branch=<branch> always means refs/heads/<branch>
+ clone: delay cloning until after remote HEAD checking
+ clone: factor out remote ref writing
+ clone: factor out HEAD update code
+ clone: factor out checkout code
+ clone: write detached HEAD in bare repositories
+ t5601: add missing && cascade
(this branch uses nd/clone-single-branch.)
Applied two band-aids to a corner-case regression.
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
* nd/clone-single-branch (2012-01-08) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-09 at 6c3c759)
+ clone: add --single-branch to fetch only one branch
(this branch is used by nd/clone-detached.)
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* jn/gitweb-unspecified-action (2012-01-09) 1 commit
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at 2b31714)
+ gitweb: Fix actionless dispatch for non-existent objects
Looked reasonable.
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* nd/index-pack-no-recurse (2012-01-16) 3 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-20 at d1e964e)
+ index-pack: eliminate unlimited recursion in get_base_data()
+ index-pack: eliminate recursion in find_unresolved_deltas
+ Eliminate recursion in setting/clearing marks in commit list
Much better explained than the previous round.
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
* cb/git-daemon-tests (2012-01-08) 5 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-08 at 1db8351)
+ git-daemon tests: wait until daemon is ready
+ git-daemon: produce output when ready
+ git-daemon: add tests
+ dashed externals: kill children on exit
+ run-command: optionally kill children on exit
Will merge early in the next cycle.
* jk/parse-object-cached (2012-01-06) 3 commits
(merged to 'next' on 2012-01-08 at 8c6fa4a)
+ upload-pack: avoid parsing tag destinations
+ upload-pack: avoid parsing objects during ref advertisement
+ parse_object: try internal cache before reading object db
These are a bit scary changes, but I do think they are worth doing.
Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27)
2012-01-27 21:43 ` What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27) Junio C Hamano
@ 2012-01-28 5:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-01-28 17:23 ` Felipe Contreras
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-01-28 5:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Matthieu Moy, Felipe Contreras; +Cc: git
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
> * mm/zsh-completion-regression-fix (2012-01-17) 1 commit
> (merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 7bc2e0a)
> + bash-completion: don't add quoted space for ZSH (fix regression)
>
> Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
This topic has been superseded by Felipe's f15026b (git-completion:
workaround zsh COMPREPLY bug, 2012-01-25) to use "typeset -h IFS", so I
should drop this.
Am I mistaken?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27)
2012-01-28 5:37 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2012-01-28 17:23 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-01-30 8:47 ` Matthieu Moy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2012-01-28 17:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Matthieu Moy, git
On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
>
>> * mm/zsh-completion-regression-fix (2012-01-17) 1 commit
>> (merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 7bc2e0a)
>> + bash-completion: don't add quoted space for ZSH (fix regression)
>>
>> Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
>
> This topic has been superseded by Felipe's f15026b (git-completion:
> workaround zsh COMPREPLY bug, 2012-01-25) to use "typeset -h IFS", so I
> should drop this.
>
> Am I mistaken?
That's correct.
--
Felipe Contreras
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27)
2012-01-28 17:23 ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2012-01-30 8:47 ` Matthieu Moy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Matthieu Moy @ 2012-01-30 8:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Junio C Hamano, git
Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail•com> writes:
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
>>
>>> * mm/zsh-completion-regression-fix (2012-01-17) 1 commit
>>> (merged to 'next' on 2012-01-23 at 7bc2e0a)
>>> + bash-completion: don't add quoted space for ZSH (fix regression)
>>>
>>> Will merge early in the next cycle and deal with any fallout in 'master'.
>>
>> This topic has been superseded by Felipe's f15026b (git-completion:
>> workaround zsh COMPREPLY bug, 2012-01-25) to use "typeset -h IFS", so I
>> should drop this.
>>
>> Am I mistaken?
>
> That's correct.
Yes. You can drop my version.
--
Matthieu Moy
http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9
2012-01-27 21:31 [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9 Junio C Hamano
2012-01-27 21:41 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2012-01-27 21:43 ` What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27) Junio C Hamano
@ 2012-02-02 20:50 ` Jakub Narebski
[not found] ` <CAPc5daVhXQ3-TCqZi8di=j5LdpwXZUt3bO8KkvA2UmL6axCRqQ@mail.gmail.com>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2012-02-02 20:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git, Linux Kernel
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
> The latest feature release Git 1.7.9 is now available at the usual
> places.
>
> The release tarballs are found at:
>
> http://code.google.com/p/git-core/downloads/list
>
> and their SHA-1 checksums are:
>
> ed51ef5ef250daaa6e98515cf2641820cd268d4c git-1.7.9.tar.gz
> c7b1fa20dc501beb2cb5091dd24dbfd2a0013a0c git-htmldocs-1.7.9.tar.gz
> 1ca1fc430b2814f9e9cf82ec3bf7f2eaf5209b7a git-manpages-1.7.9.tar.gz
When trying to rebuild RPM out of tarball with
$ rpmbuild -tb git-1.7.9.tar.gz
I get the following error at the end of build phase:
RPM build errors:
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/locale/is/LC_MESSAGES/git.mo
Shouldn't this file be put in git package, or in separate
git-i18n-is / git-i18n-Icelandic RPM package?
--
Jakub Narebski
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9
[not found] ` <CAPc5daVhXQ3-TCqZi8di=j5LdpwXZUt3bO8KkvA2UmL6axCRqQ@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2012-02-03 12:52 ` Jakub Narebski
2012-02-03 19:41 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2012-02-03 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:50 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail•com> wrote:
>
> > When trying to rebuild RPM out of tarball with
> >
> > $ rpmbuild -tb git-1.7.9.tar.gz
> >
> > I get the following error at the end of build phase:
> >
> > RPM build errors:
> > Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
> > /usr/share/locale/is/LC_MESSAGES/git.mo
> >
>
> I think it should be simply ignored at least for now. I stopped touching
> the rpm spec since August last year (the only reason I was running rpmbuild
> was to install them on k.org), so I didn't notice.
So for the time being something like that would be an acceptable fix?
diff --git a/git.spec b/git.spec
index 8ceb42b..5461b0b 100644
--- a/git.spec
+++ b/git.spec
@@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name perllocal.pod -exec rm -f {} ';'
%else
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}
%endif
+rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/locale
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d
install -m 644 -T contrib/completion/git-completion.bash $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/git
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9
2012-02-03 12:52 ` Jakub Narebski
@ 2012-02-03 19:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-03 20:55 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-02-03 19:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Narebski; +Cc: git
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail•com> writes:
>> > RPM build errors:
>> > Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>> > /usr/share/locale/is/LC_MESSAGES/git.mo
>> >
>>
>> I think it should be simply ignored at least for now. I stopped touching
>> the rpm spec since August last year (the only reason I was running rpmbuild
>> was to install them on k.org), so I didn't notice.
>
> So for the time being something like that would be an acceptable fix?
Except that the patch probably wants to go to git.spec.in, removing that
installation target would be a good local workaround for now.
I said "local workaround", meaning that I am not all that interested in
applying such a patch myself. Somebody who wants to do RPM needs to
decide what subpackage(s) it should go before we start accepting more po/
files, and at that time the workaround needs to be reverted.
And hopefully that should happen soonish ;-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9
2012-02-03 19:41 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2012-02-03 20:55 ` Jakub Narebski
2012-02-03 21:49 ` [PATCH] git.spec: Workaround localized messages not put in any RPM Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2012-02-03 20:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail•com> writes:
>>>> RPM build errors:
>>>> Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
>>>> /usr/share/locale/is/LC_MESSAGES/git.mo
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think it should be simply ignored at least for now. I stopped touching
>>> the rpm spec since August last year (the only reason I was running rpmbuild
>>> was to install them on k.org), so I didn't notice.
>>
>> So for the time being something like that would be an acceptable fix?
>
> Except that the patch probably wants to go to git.spec.in, removing that
> installation target would be a good local workaround for now.
O.K., will do.
Anyway this change makes rpmbuild process complete.
> I said "local workaround", meaning that I am not all that interested in
> applying such a patch myself. Somebody who wants to do RPM needs to
> decide what subpackage(s) it should go before we start accepting more po/
> files, and at that time the workaround needs to be reverted.
>
> And hopefully that should happen soonish ;-)
The git-i18n-Icelandic proposal for /usr/share/locale/is/LC_MESSAGES/git.mo
follow the KDE pattern (e.g. kde-i18n-Polish). This might be a place for
translated manpages and other documentation, if there is any.
On the other hand all translations for gitk are in gitk package
(as /usr/share/gitk/lib/msgs/*.msg, not /usr/share/locale/*/LC_MESSAGES/git.mo)
Same for git-gui.
--
Jakub Narebski
Poland
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] git.spec: Workaround localized messages not put in any RPM
2012-02-03 20:55 ` Jakub Narebski
@ 2012-02-03 21:49 ` Jakub Narebski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narebski @ 2012-02-03 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Currently building git RPM from tarball results in the following
error:
RPM build errors:
Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found:
/usr/share/locale/is/LC_MESSAGES/git.mo
This is caused by the fact that localized messages do not have their
place in some RPM package. Let's postpone decision where they should
be put (be it git-i18n-Icelandic, or git-i18n, or git package itself)
for later by removing locale files at the end of install phase.
Signed-off-by: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail•com>
---
git.spec.in | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/git.spec.in b/git.spec.in
index c562c62..b93df10 100644
--- a/git.spec.in
+++ b/git.spec.in
@@ -134,6 +134,7 @@ find $RPM_BUILD_ROOT -type f -name perllocal.pod -exec rm -f {} ';'
%else
rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_mandir}
%endif
+rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_datadir}/locale
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d
install -m 644 -T contrib/completion/git-completion.bash $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_sysconfdir}/bash_completion.d/git
--
1.7.9
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2012-03-06 7:10 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-03-06 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.9 done on
Jan 27, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.9.3. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2012-06-19 23:53 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-06-19 23:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.11 done on
Jun 17, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.10.5. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2012-08-20 3:16 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-08-20 3:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.12 done on
Aug 19, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.11.5. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2012-09-18 23:14 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-09-18 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.12 done on
Aug 19, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.12.1. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2012-10-08 20:08 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-10-08 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.7.12 done on
Aug 19, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.12.3. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches. The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well
documented and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to
be in testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2012-10-21 22:10 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-10-21 22:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.8.0 done on
Oct 21, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.7.12.4. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/gitk/gitk.git
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2012-12-10 23:16 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2012-12-10 23:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a "feature
release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they typically are named
with three dotted decimal digits. The last such release was 1.8.0 done on
Oct 21, 2012. You can expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always
more stable than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.0.2. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2013-01-01 0:27 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2013-01-01 0:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they
typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.8.1 done on Dec 31, 2012 (or Jan 1, 2013, depending on
where you were when it happened). You can expect that the tip of the
"master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.0.3. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2013-01-28 20:48 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2013-01-28 20:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few gitweb interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they
typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.8.1 done on Dec 31, 2012 (or Jan 1, 2013, depending on
where you were when it happened). You can expect that the tip of the
"master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.1.2. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2013-03-13 20:26 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2013-03-13 20:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise is a sign that people involved don't have
enough mental/time bandwidth to process them right at the moment, and
it often helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before
sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP (including the maintainer):
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes also be found
on the #git IRC channel on Freenode. Its log is available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch and they
typically are named with three dotted decimal digits. The last such
release was 1.8.2 done on Mar 13, 2013. You can expect that the tip of
the "master" branch is always more stable than any of the released
versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut from
it. The maintenance releases are named with four dotted decimal, named
after the feature release they are updates to; the last such release was
1.8.1.5. New features never go to this branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic branches.
The topics on the branch are not complete, well tested, nor well documented
and need further work. When a topic that was in "pu" proves to be in a
testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged.
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
I would like to thank everybody who helped to raise git into the current
shape. Especially I would like to thank the git list regulars whose help
I have relied on and expect to continue relying on heavily:
- Linus Torvalds, Shawn Pearce, Johannes Schindelin, Nicolas Pitre,
René Scharfe, Jeff King, Jonathan Nieder, Johan Herland, Johannes
Sixt, Sverre Rabbelier, Michael J Gruber, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy,
Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason and Thomas Rast for helping with general
design and implementation issues and reviews on the mailing list.
- Shawn and Nicolas Pitre for helping with packfile design and
implementation issues.
- Martin Langhoff, Frank Lichtenheld and Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for
cvsserver and cvsimport.
- Paul Mackerras for gitk.
- Eric Wong, David D. Kilzer and Sam Vilain for git-svn.
- Simon Hausmann, Pete Wyckoff and Luke Diamond for git-p4.
- Jakub Narebski, John Hawley, Petr Baudis, Luben Tuikov, Giuseppe
Bilotta for maintaining and enhancing gitweb.
- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason for kicking off the i18n effort, and Jiang
Xin for volunteering to be the l10n coordinator.
- Jens Lehmann, Heiko Voigt and Lars Hjemli for submodule related
Porcelains.
- J. Bruce Fields, Jonathan Nieder, Michael J Gruber and Thomas Rast for
documentation (and countless others for proofreading and fixing).
- Alexandre Julliard for Emacs integration.
- David Aguilar and Charles Bailey for taking good care of git-mergetool
(and Theodore Ts'o for creating it in the first place) and git-difftool.
- Johannes Schindelin, Johannes Sixt, Erik Faye-Lund, Pat Thoyts and others
for their effort to move things forward on the Windows front.
- People on non-Linux platforms for keeping their eyes on portability;
especially, Randal Schwartz, Theodore Ts'o, Jason Riedy, Thomas Glanzmann,
Brandon Casey, Jeff King, Alex Riesen and countless others.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2014-11-26 23:09 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2014-11-26 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.2.0 done on Nov 26, 2014. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.2.1" will be the
first maintenance relaese for "2.2" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-02-05 22:53 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-02-05 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.3.0 done on Feb 5th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.2.1" will be the
first maintenance relaese for "2.2" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-03-06 23:33 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-03-06 23:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
[note to regular readers; there are a few updated paragraphs,
regarding our association with SFC and also our security mailing
list.]
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.3.0 done on Feb 5th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.2" is the
second maintenance relaese for "2.3" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-03-23 21:38 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-03-23 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
[jc: I usually do this at the major release, but because we are
seeing many new folks due to GSoC, and also the newsletter is
getting closer to reality, so here is a special edition.]
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
We will soon have a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community
(http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/266066). If
you want to help its publication, please contact Christian and/or
Thomas.
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
You can browse the HTML manual pages at:
http://git-htmldocs.googlecode.com/git/git.html
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.3.0 done on Feb 5th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.4" is the
fourth maintenance relaese for "2.3" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-04-30 19:51 Junio C Hamano
2015-05-08 14:46 ` Christian Couder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-04-30 19:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community (visit
http://git.github.io/ to find "Git Rev News"). If you want to help
its publication, please contact Christian and/or Thomas.
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.4.0 done on Apr 30th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.3" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2015-04-30 19:51 Junio C Hamano
@ 2015-05-08 14:46 ` Christian Couder
2015-05-08 16:25 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Christian Couder @ 2015-05-08 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Hi Junio,
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 9:51 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
[...]
> * Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
It seems strange to me that the above section title still talks about
"trusted lieutenants and credits" ...
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
> should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
> and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
>
> Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
> own authoritative repository and maintainers:
>
> - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
>
> git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
>
> - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
>
> git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
>
> - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
>
> https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
... but it looks like there is only the "Other people's trees" part of
the message compared to what used to be in this section.
I am still wondering if it has been truncated on purpose or not.
Thanks anyway,
Christian.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2015-05-08 14:46 ` Christian Couder
@ 2015-05-08 16:25 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-05-08 16:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Christian Couder; +Cc: git
Christian Couder <christian.couder@gmail•com> writes:
> I am still wondering if it has been truncated on purpose or not.
The document is already too large and people come and go over time.
Maintaining that list becomes time sink, absorbing time better spent
on reviewing and polishing their patches rather than their names in
that list. Rather than keeping a stale list forever, at some point
I decided to trim and start afresh, perhaps mentioning very notable
contribution from people there if there were any around the time the
message goes out to the list, which hasn't happened.
And with Git Rev News, I probably do not have to worry about it too
much, I hope ;-)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-07-15 21:43 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-07-15 21:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-core/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://code.google.com/p/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.4.0 done on Apr 30th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.3.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.3" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building, using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-08-28 21:12 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-08-28 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.5.0 done on Jul 27th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.5.1" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.5" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building, using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-09-28 23:20 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-09-28 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.6.0 done on Sep 28th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.5.1" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.5" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building, using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees, trusted lieutenants and credits.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2015-11-05 23:14 Junio C Hamano
2015-11-06 10:50 ` Xue Fuqiao
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-11-05 23:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories, branches and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.6.0 done on Sep 28th, 2015. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.6.3" is the
third maintenance release for the "2.6" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2015-11-05 23:14 Junio C Hamano
@ 2015-11-06 10:50 ` Xue Fuqiao
2015-11-06 17:38 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Xue Fuqiao @ 2015-11-06 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: Git
Hi Junio,
Thanks for writing this note! It is very helpful.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 7:14 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> The list archive is available at a few public sites:
>
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=git
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
The second link is broken. The following link is the correct version
now:
https://marc.info/?l=git
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2015-11-06 10:50 ` Xue Fuqiao
@ 2015-11-06 17:38 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2015-11-06 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Xue Fuqiao; +Cc: Git
Thanks. I've known about the URL moving to marc.info for a long
time, and I am kind of surprised that I had this stale one left
un-updated for so long.
Fixed.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-01-04 23:44 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-01-04 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.7.0 done on Jan 4th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.6.3" is the
third maintenance release for the "2.6" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-02-06 0:07 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-02-06 0:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.7.0 done on Jan 4th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.6.3" is the
third maintenance release for the "2.6" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-03-28 22:42 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-03-28 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.8.0 done on Mar 28th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.7.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.7" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-04-29 22:04 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-04-29 22:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.8.0 done on Mar 28th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious, safe and urgent fixes after a
feature release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases
are cut from it. The maintenance releases used to be named with four
dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates to
(e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5" feature
release). These days, maintenance releases are named by incrementing
the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.7.4" is the
fourth maintenance release for the "2.7" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-05-19 17:48 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-05-19 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.8.0 done on Mar 28th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.8.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.8" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-06-13 19:45 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-06-13 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
and rendered in the browser if you visit this page:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
Also GitHub shows the manual pages formatted in HTML (with a
formatting backend different from the one that is used to create the
above) at:
http://git-scm.com/docs/git
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.9 done on June 13th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.8.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.8" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-07-11 20:14 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-07-11 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using
gmane is often the easiest to follow by readers, like this:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/27/focus=217
as it also allows people who subscribe to the mailing list as gmane
newsgroup to "jump to" the article.
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.9 done on June 13th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.8.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.8" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-08-12 19:55 Junio C Hamano
2016-08-12 22:42 ` Eric Wong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-08-12 19:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
is still available. An alternative
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
will become usable once it catches up with old messages.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.9 done on June 13th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.9.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.9" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-12 19:55 Junio C Hamano
@ 2016-08-12 22:42 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-13 8:10 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2016-08-12 22:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Junio C Hamano
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
>
> nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
>
> is still available. An alternative
>
> nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
>
> will become usable once it catches up with old messages.
Mostly caught up, I injected 33 more today which were
cross-posted (which tripped up some of my anti-spam rules) or
simply missed by gmane.
There may be more in some personal archives gmane doesn't
have...
I've also added NNTP links (including gmane) to the footer in
public-inbox.org/git
> message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
> so, like this:
>
> http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Some of the generated links have %40 in them which is the URI
escape for '@'. I'll make a change to keep the '@' unescaped to
lessen confusion.
Due to the use of SQLite as a stable store for NNTP article
numbers; public-inbox can also do partial matching (up to 100
results, currently) to help correct legitimate mistakes; but I
wouldn't rely on it too much:
public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-12 22:42 ` Eric Wong
@ 2016-08-13 8:10 ` Jeff King
2016-08-13 9:04 ` Eric Wong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2016-08-13 8:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Wong; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:42:55PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> > For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
> >
> > nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
> >
> > is still available. An alternative
> >
> > nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
> >
> > will become usable once it catches up with old messages.
>
> Mostly caught up, I injected 33 more today which were
> cross-posted (which tripped up some of my anti-spam rules) or
> simply missed by gmane.
>
> There may be more in some personal archives gmane doesn't
> have...
Is there an easy way to get _just_ the list of message-ids you are
storing (I know I can download the whole archive, but it's big)?
Then I can cross-reference with my archive. I doubt I'll have anything
significant that you don't. My archive of the early days was pulled from
gmane, though I have been collecting steadily via mailing list delivery
since 2007 or so.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-13 8:10 ` Jeff King
@ 2016-08-13 9:04 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-13 11:14 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2016-08-13 9:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
Jeff King <peff@peff•net> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 10:42:55PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> > > is still available. An alternative
> > >
> > > nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
> > >
> > > will become usable once it catches up with old messages.
> >
> > Mostly caught up, I injected 33 more today which were
> > cross-posted (which tripped up some of my anti-spam rules) or
> > simply missed by gmane.
> >
> > There may be more in some personal archives gmane doesn't
> > have...
>
> Is there an easy way to get _just_ the list of message-ids you are
> storing (I know I can download the whole archive, but it's big)?
XHDR (or HDR) over NNTP should do it (that's how I checked
against gmane):
--------8<-----
use Net::NNTP;
my $nntp = Net::NNTP->new($ENV{NNTPSERVER} || 'news.public-inbox.org');
my ($num, $first, $last) = $nntp->group('inbox.comp.version-control.git');
my $batch = 10000;
my $i;
for ($i = $first; $i < $last; $i += $batch) {
my $j = $i + $batch - 1;
$j = $last if $j > $last;
my $num2mid = $nntp->xhdr('Message-ID', "$i-$j");
for my $n ($i..$j) {
defined(my $mid = $num2mid->{$n}) or next;
print "$mid\n";
}
}
# and I forgot to optimize XHDR/HDR further in public-inbox-nntpd.
# Oh well, it seems to work, at least.
> Then I can cross-reference with my archive. I doubt I'll have anything
> significant that you don't. My archive of the early days was pulled from
> gmane, though I have been collecting steadily via mailing list delivery
> since 2007 or so.
What's odd is there's some messages with two Message-ID fields
from gmane from the old days, too. I'll dig a bit another time.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-13 9:04 ` Eric Wong
@ 2016-08-13 11:14 ` Jeff King
2016-08-14 1:27 ` Eric Wong
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2016-08-13 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Wong; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 09:04:32AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> > Is there an easy way to get _just_ the list of message-ids you are
> > storing (I know I can download the whole archive, but it's big)?
>
> XHDR (or HDR) over NNTP should do it (that's how I checked
> against gmane):
> --------8<-----
> use Net::NNTP;
> my $nntp = Net::NNTP->new($ENV{NNTPSERVER} || 'news.public-inbox.org');
> my ($num, $first, $last) = $nntp->group('inbox.comp.version-control.git');
> my $batch = 10000;
> my $i;
> for ($i = $first; $i < $last; $i += $batch) {
> my $j = $i + $batch - 1;
> $j = $last if $j > $last;
> my $num2mid = $nntp->xhdr('Message-ID', "$i-$j");
> for my $n ($i..$j) {
> defined(my $mid = $num2mid->{$n}) or next;
> print "$mid\n";
> }
> }
Thanks, that's perfect.
I collected the message-ids from my archive. Interestingly, I had a
dozen or so that did not have message-ids at all. I think most of them
are from patches that put the "From " line in the body, like this one:
http://public-inbox.org/git/20070311033833.GB10781@spearce.org/
and then they got corrupted on a round-trip through one of the bad mbox
formats (probably downloading from gmane, I'd guess; the export there
uses mbox, and I use maildir myself, so it probably got split badly
years ago). Anyway, public-inbox seems to get this case right, which is
good.
I had several hundred message ids that you didn't. About half of them
were spam or other junk. I weeded them out manually (mostly by picking
through the subjects, so possibly there's some error). The end result is
279 messages that I think are legitimate that you don't have.
I'll send them to you off-list, as the mbox is about 300K, which the
list will reject.
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-13 11:14 ` Jeff King
@ 2016-08-14 1:27 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-14 2:12 ` Eric Wong
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2016-08-14 1:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
Jeff King <peff@peff•net> wrote:
> I collected the message-ids from my archive. Interestingly, I had a
> dozen or so that did not have message-ids at all. I think most of them
> are from patches that put the "From " line in the body, like this one:
>
> http://public-inbox.org/git/20070311033833.GB10781@spearce.org/
>
> and then they got corrupted on a round-trip through one of the bad mbox
> formats (probably downloading from gmane, I'd guess; the export there
> uses mbox, and I use maildir myself, so it probably got split badly
> years ago). Anyway, public-inbox seems to get this case right, which is
> good.
Yes, I was somewhat careful to check for proper mboxes from gmane;
I just missed entire ranges :x
What's also interesting about the thread you highlighed is the
extra '<>' when you started that thread; and I have a bug where
I strip off an extra '>' which needs to be fixed...
I wonder if I should make "editorial" changes to fixup user bugs,
but then there's also bunch of messages which are replies to <y>
because git-send-email had usability problems back in the day...
> I had several hundred message ids that you didn't. About half of them
> were spam or other junk. I weeded them out manually (mostly by picking
> through the subjects, so possibly there's some error). The end result is
> 279 messages that I think are legitimate that you don't have.
>
> I'll send them to you off-list, as the mbox is about 300K, which the
> list will reject.
Thanks, should all be imported.
The one which started the thread belonging to
<loom.20100716T103549-783@post•gmane.org> was really iffy,
but I kept it; as well as an "unsubscribe" one; I guess those
people are shamed for life :)
git cat-file blob HEAD:b7/5bb577d76487bc9aebf0656d4e03eff22049f4
is totally legit, but doesn't seem to show up properly,
so there's another bug I need to fix. For the moment, the
following also works:
public-inbox.org/git/b75bb577d76487bc9aebf0656d4e03eff22049f4/
(but I guess it was reposted as <26299.4828321554$1213013668@news•gmane.org>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-14 1:27 ` Eric Wong
@ 2016-08-14 2:12 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-14 12:23 ` Jeff King
2016-08-14 12:19 ` Jeff King
2016-08-14 15:00 ` Philip Oakley
2 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2016-08-14 2:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff King; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
Eric Wong <e@80x24•org> wrote:
> Thanks, should all be imported.
Oops, missed one which was missing X-Mailing-List (causing
it to not get imported) and had "X-No-Archive: yes" set;
which meant I couldn't get it from gmane this year.
Hmm... XNAY defeats the point of public-inbox (and probably the
point of public-to-all mailing lists); so I don't think it's
worth honoring.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-14 1:27 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-14 2:12 ` Eric Wong
@ 2016-08-14 12:19 ` Jeff King
2016-08-14 15:00 ` Philip Oakley
2 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2016-08-14 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Wong; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 01:27:06AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> What's also interesting about the thread you highlighed is the
> extra '<>' when you started that thread; and I have a bug where
> I strip off an extra '>' which needs to be fixed...
Oh, that's interesting. It's not in the message that started the thread;
the bug is in the in-reply-to headers of the patches themselves. I don't
remember what I was using to send patches back then. It might have been
send-email, and I suspect I did:
git send-email --in-reply-to='<whatever>'
after cutting-and-pasting '<whatever>' from the cover letter.
> I wonder if I should make "editorial" changes to fixup user bugs,
> but then there's also bunch of messages which are replies to <y>
> because git-send-email had usability problems back in the day...
I wouldn't go too far in editorial changes. I made a few when skimming
the messages I just sent for spam, and dropped some empty messages, or
"unsubscribe me" ones. But it's not worth the human effort to go back
and scrub list archives from 10 years ago.
Fixing up an extra "<>" is easily done once in your parsing scripts,
though, and I'd be surprised if I'm the only one to have made that
mistake.
> The one which started the thread belonging to
> <loom.20100716T103549-783@post•gmane.org> was really iffy,
I think I exercised editorial control over similar "your software is now
listed in our archive!" messages in what I sent. But yeah, there's going
to be some spam and some cruft in the archive. It's just a fact of life.
The solution is good searching and organizing tools to find the signal
you're looking for, not to make sure the noise hits zero.
> git cat-file blob HEAD:b7/5bb577d76487bc9aebf0656d4e03eff22049f4
>
> is totally legit, but doesn't seem to show up properly,
Heh, yeah, I saw that one (and I think it broke some of my initial
scripting, which foolishly assumed nobody had message-ids with spaces in
them).
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-14 2:12 ` Eric Wong
@ 2016-08-14 12:23 ` Jeff King
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jeff King @ 2016-08-14 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Wong; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 02:12:34AM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Eric Wong <e@80x24•org> wrote:
> > Thanks, should all be imported.
>
> Oops, missed one which was missing X-Mailing-List (causing
> it to not get imported) and had "X-No-Archive: yes" set;
> which meant I couldn't get it from gmane this year.
>
> Hmm... XNAY defeats the point of public-inbox (and probably the
> point of public-to-all mailing lists); so I don't think it's
> worth honoring.
I didn't even think to look for that header. It looks like it's
basically all one guy. I would argue that it should not be honored for
the git dev list, if only because those emails are a record of the
provenance of patches. The Signed-off-by is a certification that the
patch is OK to submit, but it's presumably worth more with an audit
trail including the email headers.
(Also, I have always found it a little silly to post publicly with a
"please don't anybody record this!" header).
-Peff
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-14 1:27 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-14 2:12 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-14 12:19 ` Jeff King
@ 2016-08-14 15:00 ` Philip Oakley
2016-08-14 22:52 ` Eric Wong
2 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Philip Oakley @ 2016-08-14 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Wong, Jeff King; +Cc: git, Junio C Hamano
From: "Eric Wong" <e@80x24•org>
>
> Yes, I was somewhat careful to check for proper mboxes from gmane;
> I just missed entire ranges :x
>
There were a number of messages that were listed by gmane as being in the
various Git for Windows lists such as msysgit, especially when the messages
went to both lists (as the issue had common cause) that failed to get onto
the regualr gmane list.
Are these something that has been included?
Philip
A quick search on a possible message gave
https://public-inbox.org/git/55BF6808.1000500@web.de/ which has no parent,
but that parent actually only went to the msysgit list, so no real surprise
there, but I do remember some other cases that were on list - I just can't
find them at the moment :-(.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-08-14 15:00 ` Philip Oakley
@ 2016-08-14 22:52 ` Eric Wong
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Eric Wong @ 2016-08-14 22:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Philip Oakley; +Cc: Jeff King, git, Junio C Hamano
Philip Oakley <philipoakley@iee•org> wrote:
> From: "Eric Wong" <e@80x24•org>
> >
> >Yes, I was somewhat careful to check for proper mboxes from gmane;
> >I just missed entire ranges :x
> >
>
> There were a number of messages that were listed by gmane as being in the
> various Git for Windows lists such as msysgit, especially when the messages
> went to both lists (as the issue had common cause) that failed to get onto
> the regualr gmane list.
>
> Are these something that has been included?
If they were on both lists, yes, gmane seems to miss some of
those messages, unfortunately.
> Philip
>
> A quick search on a possible message gave
> https://public-inbox.org/git/55BF6808.1000500@web.de/ which has no parent,
> but that parent actually only went to the msysgit list, so no real surprise
> there, but I do remember some other cases that were on list - I just can't
> find them at the moment :-(.
If a message was only posted exclusively on other lists, it
should stay there and it's archives. public-inbox provides a
way to lookup external messages by Message-ID for this reason.
Is there a way to lookup messages by Message-ID from the msysgit
archives? I could add it to the existing list of alternate
Message-ID lookup services:
https://public-inbox.org/meta/20160814054731.26194-1-e@80x24.org/
GoogleGroups doesn't seem usable without JavaScript at all,
unfortunately :<
I don't think the msysgit archives would be too large and I
wouldn't mind hosting them myself. But, users on GoogleGroups
may not be used to our conventions and not appreciate having
their unobfuscated addresses exposed or reply-to-all...
I will probably add an option to support centralized lists to
public-inbox sometime, though. I don't like centralization,
but completely inaccessible archives are worse.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-09-03 2:17 Junio C Hamano
2016-09-03 10:26 ` Jakub Narębski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-09-03 2:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.10 done on Sep 2nd, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.9.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.9" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-09-03 2:17 Junio C Hamano
@ 2016-09-03 10:26 ` Jakub Narębski
2016-09-07 16:16 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Jakub Narębski @ 2016-09-03 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano, git
W dniu 03.09.2016 o 04:17, Junio C Hamano pisze:
> Please remember to always state
>
> - what you wanted to achieve;
>
> - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
> the behavior);
I wonder if it be worth adding to not use aliases (or expand them). I have
seen quite a few such questions on StackOverflow...
>
> - what you saw happen (X above);
>
> - what you expected to see (Y above); and
>
> - how the last two are different.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2016-09-03 10:26 ` Jakub Narębski
@ 2016-09-07 16:16 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-09-07 16:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jakub Narębski; +Cc: git
Jakub Narębski <jnareb@gmail•com> writes:
> W dniu 03.09.2016 o 04:17, Junio C Hamano pisze:
>
>> Please remember to always state
>>
>> - what you wanted to achieve;
>>
>> - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
>> the behavior);
>
> I wonder if it be worth adding to not use aliases (or expand them). I have
> seen quite a few such questions on StackOverflow...
- how others can reproduce what you did (the version of git and
the command sequence);
perhaps?
>>
>> - what you saw happen (X above);
>>
>> - what you expected to see (Y above); and
>>
>> - how the last two are different.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-10-03 22:31 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-10-03 22:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.10 done on Sep 2nd, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.9.3"
is the third maintenance release for the "2.9" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2016-11-29 21:24 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2016-11-29 21:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.11 done on Nov 29th, 2016. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.10.2"
is the second maintenance release for the "2.10" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-02-24 19:29 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-02-24 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.11.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.11" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-03-20 21:39 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-03-20 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-03-24 21:19 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-03-24 21:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-06-24 23:24 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-06-24 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-07-13 23:43 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-07-13 23:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.12 done on Feb 24th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-08-04 16:54 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-08-04 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.14 done on Aug 4th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-10-30 6:19 Junio C Hamano
2017-10-30 12:50 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-10-30 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.15 done on Oct 30th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2017-10-30 6:19 Junio C Hamano
@ 2017-10-30 12:50 ` Johannes Schindelin
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Johannes Schindelin @ 2017-10-30 12:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Hi Junio,
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
> requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
> the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
> subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
> everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
> I am not subscribed".
I have heard about a dozen complaints that mails were simply eaten by the
mailing list. At least some of those cases were due to HTML (or
HTML/plain) mails being quietly dropped, and it caused more than just
minor frustration.
Maybe mention this in your maintainer's note, to help stave off such
problems?
Ciao,
Dscho
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2017-11-28 5:20 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2017-11-28 5:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git.sourceforge.jp/gitroot/git-core/git.git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.15 done on Oct 30th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. This branch is also
merged into "master" to propagate the fixes forward as needed.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2019-02-26 17:15 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2019-02-26 17:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
[jc: as I said earlier, I'll be offline for a week, but remembered
that I haven't sent this out for a while---I tried to make a habit
of sending this message out after every feature release, and we had
one recently, so it is a good time to send one from the airport
lounge before I fly out.]
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://public-inbox.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://public-inbox.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
git://git-core.git.sourceforge.net/gitroot/git-core/git-core/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but recently we
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.15 done on Oct 30th, 2017. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.12.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.12" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pat Thoyts:
git://repo.or.cz/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2020-06-01 16:33 Junio C Hamano
2020-06-14 11:26 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-01 16:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.27 done on Jun 1st, 2020. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.26.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.26" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "pu" (proposed updates) branch bundles all the remaining topic
branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There is no guarantee that
the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any and all topics that
are remotely promising from the list traffic, so please do not read
too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "pu" branch. This
branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics in them may
turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing more. The
topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested, or well
documented and they often need further work. When a topic that was
in "pu" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..pu" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "pu" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "pu" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "pu") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "pu" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2020-06-01 16:33 Junio C Hamano
@ 2020-06-14 11:26 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2020-06-15 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Kaartic Sivaraam @ 2020-06-14 11:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Hi Junio,
On 01-06-2020 22:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
> News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
>
It seems the Rev News page has moved to:
https://git.github.io/rev_news/index.html
The following works too:
https://git.github.io/rev_news
>
> * Reporting bugs
>
> When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
> your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
> way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
> in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
> correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
> that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
> to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
>
> Please remember to always state
>
> - what you wanted to achieve;
>
> - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
> the behavior);
>
> - what you saw happen (X above);
>
> - what you expected to see (Y above); and
>
> - how the last two are different.
>
> See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
> hints.
>
I wonder if it might be worth mentioning `git bugreport` somewhere here.
> When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
> please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
> even have different directory structures).
>
Thanks for routinely sending these informative notes! :)
--
Sivaraam
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2020-06-14 11:26 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
@ 2020-06-15 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-06-15 16:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Kaartic Sivaraam; +Cc: git
Kaartic Sivaraam <kaartic.sivaraam@gmail•com> writes:
> On 01-06-2020 22:03, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>
>> There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
>> News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/rev_news.html).
>>
>
> It seems the Rev News page has moved to:
>
> https://git.github.io/rev_news/index.html
>
> The following works too:
>
> https://git.github.io/rev_news
Thanks. I am on "vacation", so will address this later in the week.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2020-07-17 20:27 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-07-17 20:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
[Administrivia]
As I sent the latest issue of the "What's cooking" report
yesterday, and there is no change other than the "v0
repositories take any extensions known to us for now" regression
fixes in today's rc1, I am not sending a new "What's cooking"
out, even though we tagged 2.28.0-rc1 today. Instead, I'll send
this one out, as it has been a while...
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.27 done on Jun 1st, 2020. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.26.1"
was the first maintenance release for the "2.26" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2020-10-29 22:27 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-10-29 22:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
git://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
git://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
git://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.29 done on Oct 19th, 2020. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2020-12-28 19:09 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2020-12-28 19:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.30 done on Dec 28th, 2020. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2021-03-15 19:34 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-03-15 19:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.31 done on Mar 15th, 2021. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2021-03-26 22:53 Junio C Hamano
2021-03-27 6:59 ` Bagas Sanjaya
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-03-26 22:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.31 done on Mar 15th, 2021. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2021-03-26 22:53 Junio C Hamano
@ 2021-03-27 6:59 ` Bagas Sanjaya
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Bagas Sanjaya @ 2021-03-27 6:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
On 27/03/21 05.53, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Welcome to the Git development community.
>
> This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
> project is managed, and how you can work with it.
>
> The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
> do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
> that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
> learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
> few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
> others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
> list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
> reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
> folder).
>
>
> * Mailing list and the community
>
> The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
> requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
> the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
> subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
> everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
> I am not subscribed".
>
> As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
> that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
> GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
>
> Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
> and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
> project convention.
>
> If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
> several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
> but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
> do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
> getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
> your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
> right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
> becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
>
> The list archive is available at a few public sites:
>
> http://lore.kernel.org/git/
> http://marc.info/?l=git
> http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
>
> For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
>
> nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
> nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
>
> are available.
>
> When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
> message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
> so, like this:
>
> http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
>
> Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
> stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
> message in the Git list).
>
> Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
> the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Freenode. Their logs are
> available at:
>
> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
>
> There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
> News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
>
> Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
> organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
> liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
>
> For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
> towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
> tree, or:
>
> https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
>
>
> * Reporting bugs
>
> When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
> your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
> way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
> in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
> correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
> that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
> to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
>
> Please remember to always state
>
> - what you wanted to achieve;
>
> - what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
> the behavior);
>
> - what you saw happen (X above);
>
> - what you expected to see (Y above); and
>
> - how the last two are different.
>
> See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
> hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
> make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
>
> If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
> it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
> our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
> a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
> vulnerabilities, including:
>
> - people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
> - people operating major git hosting sites with many users
> - people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
>
> where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
> leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
>
>
> * Repositories and documentation.
>
> My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
> https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
> https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
> https://github.com/git/git/
> https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
>
> This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
> individual topics broken out:
>
> https://github.com/gitster/git/
>
> A few web interfaces are found at:
>
> http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
> https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
> http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
>
> Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
> found in:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
> https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
> https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
>
> The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
> viewed online at:
>
> https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
>
>
> * How various branches are used.
>
> There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
> of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
>
> The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
> ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
> "feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
> named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
> switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
> three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
>
> The last such release was 2.31 done on Mar 15th, 2021. You can expect
> that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
> the released versions.
>
> Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
> "master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
> release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
> from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
> several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
> of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
> four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
> to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
> feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
> incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
> was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
>
> New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
> primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
>
> A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
> series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
> branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
> when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
> there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
> topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
>
> Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
> general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
> not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
> breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
> topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
> is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
> "next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
> the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
>
> The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
> remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
> is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
> and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
> please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
> branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
> in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
> more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
> or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
> was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
>
> You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
> currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
> to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
> The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
> early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
> are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
> maintainer for his daily work.
>
> The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
> usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
> "master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
> using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
> Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
> get ejected from "next" when this happens.
>
> A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
> is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
> by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
> and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
> incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
> patches and how the problem was corrected.
>
> Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
> release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
> needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
> or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
> fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
>
>
> * Other people's trees.
>
> Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
> should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
> and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
>
> Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
> own authoritative repository and maintainers:
>
> - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
>
> https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
>
> - gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
>
> git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
>
> - po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
>
> https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
>
> When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
> please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
> even have different directory structures).
>
Grazie Junio for this message note.
I would like to see the note above in CONTRIBUTING.md, because new
contributors will most likely read CONTRIBUTING.md rather than searching
this ML archive for the note.
--
An old man doll... just what I always wanted! - Clara
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2021-06-06 14:14 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-06-06 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on FreeNode (historically, but
the IRC situation is in flux at the moment). Their logs are available
at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the source tree
of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen".
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.32 done on June 6th, 2021. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are applied to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g. "2.29.2"
was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the 'maint' branch. It is merged into "master"
primarily to propagate the description in the release notes forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2021-08-16 23:06 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2021-08-16 23:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any private message to this address, because it is likely
that such a message will not be seen by any human being. Spam filters
learned that legitimate messages to the address come only from a very
few sender addresses that are known to be good, and messages from all
others are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing
list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would
reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam
folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on FreeNode (historically, but
the IRC situation is in flux at the moment). Their logs are available
at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.33 done on August 16th, 2021. You can
expect that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than
any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2022-01-24 19:25 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-01-24 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being. Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on FreeNode (historically, but
the IRC situation is in flux at the moment). Their logs are available
at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.35 done on Jan 24th, 2022. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2022-04-18 17:03 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-04-18 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being. Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.36 done on Apr 18th, 2022. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2022-06-27 18:22 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-06-27 18:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being. Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.37 done on June 27th, 2022. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2022-07-12 17:08 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-07-12 17:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being. Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.37 done on June 27th, 2022. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2022-10-03 17:26 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-10-03 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being. Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.38 done on Oct 3rd, 2022. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2022-12-11 5:18 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2022-12-11 5:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being. Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.38 done on Oct 3rd, 2022. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.38.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.38" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2023-03-13 18:02 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2023-03-13 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>; please
do not send any message to this address unless it also goes to the
mailing list, because it is likely that such a message will not be
seen by any human being. Spam filters learned that legitimate
messages to the address come only from a very few sender addresses
that are known to be good, and messages from all others are likely to
be spam unless they are also sent to the mailing list at the same time
(i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message would reach the mailbox, but
"Reply" will likely be thrown into the spam folder).
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/
http://marc.info/?l=git
http://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
http://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/git-devel
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" http://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you expected
to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
http://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
http://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme, and then such a "topic branch"
is merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g. "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g. "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.40 done on Mar 13rd, 2023. You can expect
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually these fixes are merged to the "master" branch first,
several days before merged to the "maint" branch, to reduce the chance
of last-minute issues, but things like embargoed security fixes may
first appear in the maintenance tracks and merged up to "master" at
the same time. The maintenance releases used to be named with
four dotted decimal, named after the feature release they are updates
to (e.g. "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance release for "1.8.5"
feature release). These days, maintenance releases are named by
incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name (e.g.
"2.29.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.29" series).
New features never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
A new development does not usually happen on "master". When you send a
series of patches, after review on the mailing list, a separate topic
branch is forked from the tip of "master" (or somewhere older, especially
when the topic is about fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are queued
there, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The quality of
topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It might
not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less without major
breakage. The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. A
topic that is in "next" is expected to be polished to perfection before it
is merged to "master". Please help this process by building & using the
"next" branch for your daily work, and reporting any new bugs you find to
the mailing list, before the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles all the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen. There
is no guarantee that the maintainer has enough bandwidth to pick up any
and all topics that are remotely promising from the list traffic, so
please do not read too much into a topic being on (or not on) the "seen"
branch. This branch is mainly to remind the maintainer that the topics
in them may turn out to be interesting when they are polished, nothing
more, but can be used by contributors to anticipate what topics from
others may cause conflict with your work, and find people who are working.
on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts get out of
control. The topics on this branch aren't usually complete, well tested,
or well documented and they often need further work. When a topic that
was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics are
currently in flight. Sometimes, an idea that looked promising turns out
to be not so good and the topic can be dropped from "seen" in such a case.
The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch, which is an
early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all topics that
are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and is used by the
maintainer for his daily work. Using the tip of this branch, instead of
'next', as your daily driver is also recommended.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version,
and once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2024-03-20 16:07 Junio C Hamano
2024-03-21 0:03 ` Brian Lyles
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-03-20 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
I used to send this soon after each feature release, but somehow I
forgot for about a full year X-<. Better late than never, I guess.
--- >8 ---
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-vcs/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.44 done on Feb 22nd, 2024. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.43.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.43" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-20 16:07 Junio C Hamano
@ 2024-03-21 0:03 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-21 1:01 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Brian Lyles @ 2024-03-21 0:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Hi Junio
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 11:18 AM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
> several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
> but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
> do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
> getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
> your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
> right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
> becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
I think it would be good to revise this wording in future iterations.
"Totally uninteresting" is a bit ambiguous, and also sounds quite
negative (at least to me).
To me, this initially sounded like it meant "your patch was not
something that the git maintainers would be interested in accepting". I
*suspect* that what is actually meant here is "your patch was
straightforward and non-controversial to the point that no members of
the list saw it and felt the need to comment on it", though to be honest
I am not 100% sure.
If it is expected that a "totally uninteresting" patch might, in fact,
end up in your tree without further comment, I think it could be helpful
to indicate that as well.
Here is what comes to my mind based on my (very likely not full)
understanding of the process:
If you have sent a patch to the list and have not heard any response
for several days, a few things may have happened:
- Your patch was straightforward and non-controversial, so no
members of the list felt the need to comment on it
- The members of the list that would review your patch do not have
the time to process them at the moment
- Your patch was simply lost in the noise
If you are unsure, keep an eye on the next few "What's cooking in
git.git" emails. If your patch does not make an appearance there
within a week or so, you may want to send out a reminder. It often
helps to wait until the list traffic becomes calmer before sending a
reminder.
I don't know how accurate that actually is, but I think it conveys the
tone and clarity that I am getting at.
--
Thank you,
Brian Lyles
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-21 0:03 ` Brian Lyles
@ 2024-03-21 1:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-21 1:38 ` Brian Lyles
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-03-21 1:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Lyles; +Cc: git
"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail•com> writes:
> To me, this initially sounded like it meant "your patch was not
> something that the git maintainers would be interested in accepting". I
> *suspect* that what is actually meant here is "your patch was
> straightforward and non-controversial to the point that no members of
> the list saw it and felt the need to comment on it", though to be honest
> I am not 100% sure.
I actually meant what I wrote.
It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
deserve anybody's attention. But it is also possible that it was
lost in the noise.
And pinging on the topic by responding to your own message is not
just acceptable but very much appreciated way to remind others who
may have missed it, in case it is the latter.
If a topic is truly obvious and straight-forward, it may be taken
silently to 'seen' and even to 'next', and since it is suggested for
the contributors to look at "master..seen", such a topic would not
fall into the "hear nothing about it from anybody for a long time"
category anyway.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-21 1:01 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2024-03-21 1:38 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-21 13:12 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Brian Lyles @ 2024-03-21 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:01 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail•com> writes:
>
>> To me, this initially sounded like it meant "your patch was not
>> something that the git maintainers would be interested in accepting". I
>> *suspect* that what is actually meant here is "your patch was
>> straightforward and non-controversial to the point that no members of
>> the list saw it and felt the need to comment on it", though to be honest
>> I am not 100% sure.
>
> I actually meant what I wrote.
>
> It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
> response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
> deserve anybody's attention. But it is also possible that it was
> lost in the noise.
>
> And pinging on the topic by responding to your own message is not
> just acceptable but very much appreciated way to remind others who
> may have missed it, in case it is the latter.
>
> If a topic is truly obvious and straight-forward, it may be taken
> silently to 'seen' and even to 'next', and since it is suggested for
> the contributors to look at "master..seen", such a topic would not
> fall into the "hear nothing about it from anybody for a long time"
> category anyway.
Thanks for the clarification. I do still think that a change in the
wording and tone of this section could help make the project appear more
friendly to new contributors. Phrases like "totally uninteresting",
"uninspiring", "looked useless", and "did not deserve anybody's
attention" are all fairly harsh sounding, even if sometimes true.
Something more along the lines of "Mailing list members may not have
seen the value of the proposed changes" or "Your patch may not have
presented a convincing argument for being accepted" might land a little
more gently and make someone more willing to make another attempt at a
more compelling patch rather than feeling harshly rejected and leaving
with a bad taste in their mouth about the project like has happened in
the past [1].
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/git/xmqq7ck7x10y.fsf@gitster.g/
Simply food for thought from someone relatively new to the list.
--
Thank you,
Brian Lyles
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-21 1:38 ` Brian Lyles
@ 2024-03-21 13:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-22 1:14 ` Brian Lyles
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-03-21 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Lyles; +Cc: git
"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail•com> writes:
>> I actually meant what I wrote.
>>
>> It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
>> response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
>> deserve anybody's attention. But it is also possible that it was
>> lost in the noise.
>> ...
> Thanks for the clarification. I do still think that a change in the
> wording and tone of this section could help make the project appear more
> friendly to new contributors. Phrases like "totally uninteresting",
> "uninspiring", "looked useless", and "did not deserve anybody's
> attention" are all fairly harsh sounding, even if sometimes true.
You completely lost me. How much harsh words are used before "But
it is also possible" would not make the project sound less friendly
at all.
Let me try again.
You see your patch was sent but did not receive any reaction. You
might start thinking: "hmm, perhaps my patch was so horrible" and
you might think all the bad and harsh things about the quality of
your patch.
But do not let such thought stop you from pinging the thread again,
because the quality of your patch may not at all be the reason why
you did not receive any reaction. It could be just people were
swamped and your patch fell into cracks, and there was nothing wrong
with it.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-21 13:12 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2024-03-22 1:14 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-22 2:06 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Brian Lyles @ 2024-03-22 1:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
> "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail•com> writes:
>
>>> I actually meant what I wrote.
>>>
>>> It is possible that the reason why your patch did not receive any
>>> response was because it was uninspiring, looked useless, and did not
>>> deserve anybody's attention. But it is also possible that it was
>>> lost in the noise.
>>> ...
>> Thanks for the clarification. I do still think that a change in the
>> wording and tone of this section could help make the project appear more
>> friendly to new contributors. Phrases like "totally uninteresting",
>> "uninspiring", "looked useless", and "did not deserve anybody's
>> attention" are all fairly harsh sounding, even if sometimes true.
>
> You completely lost me. How much harsh words are used before "But
> it is also possible" would not make the project sound less friendly
> at all.
>
> Let me try again.
>
> You see your patch was sent but did not receive any reaction. You
> might start thinking: "hmm, perhaps my patch was so horrible" and
> you might think all the bad and harsh things about the quality of
> your patch.
>
> But do not let such thought stop you from pinging the thread again,
> because the quality of your patch may not at all be the reason why
> you did not receive any reaction. It could be just people were
> swamped and your patch fell into cracks, and there was nothing wrong
> with it.
Ah, okay -- I think I am better understanding the intent vs. how I
(mis)interpreted it initially. My initial interpretation was more along
the lines of "there are two possibilities: Either it was uninteresting,
or it got missed". This re-phrasing reads more as "don't assume it was
uninteresting, it may have simply been missed". Both true, but the
latter reads better in my opinion.
Thank you for clarifying. I will let you decide if some updated wording
is warranted in future notes from the maintainer, or if I simply
interpreted things in a way that you do not think others would.
--
Thank you,
Brian Lyles
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-22 1:14 ` Brian Lyles
@ 2024-03-22 2:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-22 2:35 ` Brian Lyles
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-03-22 2:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Lyles; +Cc: git
"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail•com> writes:
> Thank you for clarifying. I will let you decide if some updated wording
> is warranted in future notes from the maintainer, or if I simply
> interpreted things in a way that you do not think others would.
Perhaps like this, then?
diff --git a/MaintNotes b/MaintNotes
index 57aa6dd..18d8bcb 100644
--- a/MaintNotes
+++ b/MaintNotes
@@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
-several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
-but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
+several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
+uninteresting; it may mearly mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-22 2:06 ` Junio C Hamano
@ 2024-03-22 2:35 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-22 2:44 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Brian Lyles @ 2024-03-22 2:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Junio C Hamano; +Cc: git
Hi Junio
On Thu, Mar 21, 2024 at 9:06 PM Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> wrote:
> "Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail•com> writes:
>
>> Thank you for clarifying. I will let you decide if some updated wording
>> is warranted in future notes from the maintainer, or if I simply
>> interpreted things in a way that you do not think others would.
>
> Perhaps like this, then?
>
> diff --git a/MaintNotes b/MaintNotes
> index 57aa6dd..18d8bcb 100644
> --- a/MaintNotes
> +++ b/MaintNotes
> @@ -34,8 +34,8 @@ and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
> project convention.
>
> If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
> -several days, it could be that your patch was totally uninteresting,
> -but it also is possible that it was simply lost in the noise. Please
> +several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
> +uninteresting; it may mearly mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
> do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
> getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
> your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
I think that makes the intended meaning much clearer. Minor spelling
correction: s/mearly/merely/
--
Thank you,
Brian Lyles
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-03-22 2:35 ` Brian Lyles
@ 2024-03-22 2:44 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-03-22 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Brian Lyles; +Cc: git
"Brian Lyles" <brianmlyles@gmail•com> writes:
> I think that makes the intended meaning much clearer. Minor spelling
> correction: s/mearly/merely/
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2024-04-29 17:22 Junio C Hamano
2024-05-01 1:45 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-04-29 17:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.45 done on Apr 29th, 2024. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.43.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.43" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2024-04-29 17:22 Junio C Hamano
@ 2024-05-01 1:45 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-05-01 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git; +Cc: Johannes Sixt
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com> writes:
> Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
> own authoritative repository and maintainers:
>
> - git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Pratyush Yadav:
>
> https://github.com/prati0100/git-gui.git
This entry is a bit stale. Johannes Sixt volunteered to take this
over recently. We'll have an update soon.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2024-08-14 22:44 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-08-14 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.46 done on Jul 29th, 2024. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.43.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.43" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2024-10-07 16:13 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-10-07 16:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.47 done on Oct 7th, 2024. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.43.2" was the second maintenance release for the "2.43" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from Paul Mackerras's gitk project:
git://ozlabs.org/~paulus/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2024-11-25 7:57 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2024-11-25 7:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.47 done on Oct 7th, 2024. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.47.1" was the second maintenance release for the "2.47" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from gitk project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2025-01-10 18:54 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2025-01-10 18:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
[administrivia] this message is sent here from time to time,
most typically around the time when a new feature release comes
out. This edition has no changes relative to the previous one
posted, except for just one place where the latest feature
release is mentioned, as the latest is Git 2.48 now.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.48 done on Jan 10th, 2025. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.47.1" was the second maintenance release for the "2.47" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from gitk project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2025-03-14 17:26 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2025-03-14 17:26 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
[note] this edition has the "other places to discuss Git"
addition I asked for help to clarify and nitpick to the
community earlier.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
The mailing list, while welcoming non code contributions like bug
reports, mostly discusses updating contents of the source tree to the
(core) Git software, including documentation "git help" gives.
Non-code contributions may have places other than the mailing list
that are more preferrable. See the "other places" section near the
end.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.48 done on Jan 10th, 2025. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.47.1" was the second maintenance release for the "2.47" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from gitk project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
* Other places.
As the Git ecosystem has grown larger over the years, there are
documentation sites and third-party tools that have been created and
maintained by friendly third-parties. Reporting issues with them to
the main mailing list is still welcomed by the list participants, but
most likely you will be asked to contact these third-parties directly.
- git-scm website (https://www.git-scm.com/) is maintained directly
on its GitHub repository and its issues are managed there.
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/issues
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/?tab=readme-ov-file#contributing
- Git for Windows (https://gitforwindows.org/) is a project that
packages (core) Git software with some other goodies for the
Windows platform. They manage their own issues list and their
changes are managed directly on GitHub via pull requests, focused
primarily on Windows specific issues and their additions (like
Windows installer).
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/wiki/How-to-participate
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues
- The online edition of ProGit Book hosted at git-scm.com/book/ is
managed by the Pro Git book folks, and they maintain their work and
issues at their GitHub repository.
https://github.com/progit/progit2/issues
https://github.com/progit/progit2/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2025-06-16 17:28 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2025-06-16 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
The mailing list, while welcoming non code contributions like bug
reports, mostly discusses updating contents of the source tree to the
(core) Git software, including documentation "git help" gives.
Non-code contributions may have places other than the mailing list
that are more preferrable. See the "other places" section near the
end.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.50 done on Jun 16th, 2025. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.47.1" was the second maintenance release for the "2.47" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from gitk project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
* Other places.
As the Git ecosystem has grown larger over the years, there are
documentation sites and third-party tools that have been created and
maintained by friendly third-parties. Reporting issues with them to
the main mailing list is still welcomed by the list participants, but
most likely you will be asked to contact these third-parties directly.
- git-scm website (https://www.git-scm.com/) is maintained directly
on its GitHub repository and its issues are managed there.
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/issues
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/?tab=readme-ov-file#contributing
- Git for Windows (https://gitforwindows.org/) is a project that
packages (core) Git software with some other goodies for the
Windows platform. They manage their own issues list and their
changes are managed directly on GitHub via pull requests, focused
primarily on Windows specific issues and their additions (like
Windows installer).
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/wiki/How-to-participate
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues
- The online edition of ProGit Book hosted at git-scm.com/book/ is
managed by the Pro Git book folks, and they maintain their work and
issues at their GitHub repository.
https://github.com/progit/progit2/issues
https://github.com/progit/progit2/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2025-08-18 17:21 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2025-08-18 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come only from a very few
sender addresses that are known to be good to this address, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
The mailing list, while welcoming non code contributions like bug
reports, mostly discusses updating contents of the source tree to the
(core) Git software, including documentation "git help" gives.
Non-code contributions may have places other than the mailing list
that are more preferrable. See the "other places" section near the
end.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.51 done on Aug 18th, 2025. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes after a feature
release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are cut
from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.47.1" was the second maintenance release for the "2.47" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch. It is merged into
"master" primarily to propagate the description in the release notes
forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" (formerly "pu", proposed updates) branch bundles the
remaining topic branches the maintainer happens to have seen to remind
the maintainer that the topics in them might become interesting when
they are polished.
The contributors can use it to anticipate what topics from others
may cause conflict with their own work, and find people who are
working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork from maint or
master to grow a topic and to test (1) it by itself, (2) a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
Consider that a topic only in "seen" is not part of "git" yet. When a
topic that was in "seen" proves to be in a testable shape, it is
merged to "next".
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. Sometimes, a topic that looked promising
proves to be a bad idea and the topic gets dropped from "seen" in such
a case. The output of the above "git log" talks about a "jch" branch,
which is an early part of the "seen" branch; that branch contains all
topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but not all of "seen") and
is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from gitk project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
* Other places.
As the Git ecosystem has grown larger over the years, there are
documentation sites and third-party tools that have been created and
maintained by friendly third-parties. Reporting issues with them to
the main mailing list is still welcomed by the list participants, but
most likely you will be asked to contact these third-parties directly.
- git-scm website (https://www.git-scm.com/) is maintained directly
on its GitHub repository and its issues are managed there.
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/issues
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/?tab=readme-ov-file#contributing
- Git for Windows (https://gitforwindows.org/) is a project that
packages (core) Git software with some other goodies for the
Windows platform. They manage their own issues list and their
changes are managed directly on GitHub via pull requests, focused
primarily on Windows specific issues and their additions (like
Windows installer).
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/wiki/How-to-participate
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues
- The online edition of ProGit Book hosted at git-scm.com/book/ is
managed by the Pro Git book folks, and they maintain their work and
issues at their GitHub repository.
https://github.com/progit/progit2/issues
https://github.com/progit/progit2/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2025-11-18 22:23 Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2025-11-18 22:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come to this address only
from a very few sender addresses that are known to be good, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
The mailing list, while welcoming non code contributions like bug
reports, mostly discusses updating contents of the source tree to the
(core) Git software, including documentation "git help" gives.
Non-code contributions may have places other than the mailing list
that are more preferrable. See the "other places" section near the
end.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise. Please
do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case. Messages
getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can evaluate
your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process them
right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list traffic
becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of 'master' can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
three-dotted decimal digits that ends with ".0" (e.g., "1.9.0").
The last such release was 2.52 done on Nov 17th, 2025. We aim to keep
that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable than any of
the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes for bugs in the latest
feature release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are
cut from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.47.1" was the second maintenance release for the "2.47" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch, although changes
to help Git developers themselves, including CI updates, are often
merged down even if they are not bugfixes at all. The "maint" branch
is merged up into the "master" branch, primarily to propagate the
description in the release notes forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master".
The "seen" branch bundles the remaining topic branches that the
maintainer happens to have seen to remind the maintainer that the
topics in them might become interesting when they are polished. A
topic in "seen" can and does get discarded before it gets merged to
"next" if its idea does not pan out, just like a topic can wither on
the list without anybody supporting it. Please do not read anything
more than "the maintainer has seen it and found it potentially
interesting" into a topic being in "seen".
The contributors can use the "seen" branch to anticipate what topics
by others may cause conflicts with their own work, and find people who
are working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork your work from
maint or master and to (1) test it by itself, (2) test a temporary
merge of it to 'next' and (3) test a temporary merge to it to 'seen',
before publishing it.
You can run "git log --first-parent master..seen" to see what topics
are currently in flight. The output of the above "git log" talks
about a "jch" branch, which is an early part of the "seen" branch;
that branch contains all topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but
not all of "seen") and is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next".
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from gitk project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
* Other places.
As the Git ecosystem has grown larger over the years, there are
documentation sites and third-party tools that have been created and
maintained by friendly third-parties. Reporting issues with them to
the main mailing list is still welcomed by the list participants, but
most likely you will be asked to contact these third-parties directly.
- git-scm website (https://www.git-scm.com/) is maintained directly
on its GitHub repository and its issues are managed there.
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/issues
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/?tab=readme-ov-file#contributing
- Git for Windows (https://gitforwindows.org/) is a project that
packages (core) Git software with some other goodies for the
Windows platform. They manage their own issues list and their
changes are managed directly on GitHub via pull requests, focused
primarily on Windows specific issues and their additions (like
Windows installer).
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/wiki/How-to-participate
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues
- The online edition of ProGit Book hosted at git-scm.com/book/ is
managed by the Pro Git book folks, and they maintain their work and
issues at their GitHub repository.
https://github.com/progit/progit2/issues
https://github.com/progit/progit2/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* A note from the maintainer
@ 2026-02-02 18:36 Junio C Hamano
2026-02-02 19:22 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 1 reply; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2026-02-02 18:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
Welcome to the Git development community.
This message is written by the maintainer and talks about how Git
project is managed, and how you can work with it.
The current maintainer is Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox•com>. Spam
filters learned that legitimate messages come to this address only
from a very few sender addresses that are known to be good, and all
other messages are likely to be spam unless they are also sent to the
mailing list at the same time (i.e. "Reply-all" to the list message
would reach the mailbox, but "Reply" will likely be thrown into the
spam folder), so please do not send a message to this address unless
it is also sent to the mailing list as well.
* Mailing list and the community
The development is primarily done on the Git mailing list. Help
requests, feature proposals, bug reports and patches should be sent to
the list address <git@vger•kernel.org>. You don't have to be
subscribed to send messages. The convention on the list is to keep
everybody involved on Cc:, so it is unnecessary to say "Please Cc: me,
I am not subscribed".
As an anti-spam measure, the mailing list software rejects messages
that are not text/plain and drops them on the floor. If you are a
GMail user, you'd want to make sure "Plain text mode" is checked.
The mailing list, while welcoming non code contributions like bug
reports, mostly discusses updating contents of the source tree to the
(core) Git software, including documentation "git help" gives.
Non-code contributions may have places other than the mailing list
that are more preferrable. See the "other places" section near the
end.
Before sending patches, please read Documentation/SubmittingPatches
and Documentation/CodingGuidelines to familiarize yourself with the
project convention.
If you sent a patch and you did not hear any response from anybody for
several days, it does not necessarily mean that your patch was totally
uninteresting; it may merely mean that it was lost in the noise.
Please do not hesitate to send a reminder message in such a case.
Messages getting lost in the noise may be a sign that those who can
evaluate your patch don't have enough mental/time bandwidth to process
them right at the moment, and it often helps to wait until the list
traffic becomes calmer before sending such a reminder.
The list archive is available at a few public sites:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/
https://marc.info/?l=git
https://www.spinics.net/lists/git/
For those who prefer to read it over NNTP:
nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.git
nntp://news.public-inbox.org/inbox.comp.version-control.git
are available.
When you point at a message in a mailing list archive, using its
message ID is often the most robust (if not very friendly) way to do
so, like this:
https://lore.kernel.org/git/Pine.LNX.4.58.0504150753440.7211@ppc970.osdl.org
Often these web interfaces accept the message ID with enclosing <>
stripped (like the above example to point at one of the most important
message in the Git mailing list).
Some members of the development community can sometimes be found on
the #git and #git-devel IRC channels on Libera Chat. Their logs are
available at:
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git/last
https://colabti.org/ircloggy/git-devel/last
There is a volunteer-run newsletter to serve our community ("Git Rev
News" https://git.github.io/rev_news/).
Git is a member project of software freedom conservancy, a non-profit
organization (https://sfconservancy.org/). To reach a committee of
liaisons to the conservancy, contact them at <git@sfconservancy•org>.
For our expectations on the behaviour of the community participants
towards each other, see CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md at the top level of the source
tree, or:
https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/CODE_OF_CONDUCT.md
* Reporting bugs
When you think git does not behave as you expect, please do not stop
your bug report with just "git does not work". "I used git in this
way, but it did not work" is not much better, neither is "I used git
in this way, and X happend, which is broken". It often is that git is
correct to cause X happen in such a case, and it is your expectation
that is broken. People would not know what other result Y you
expected to see instead of X, if you left it unsaid.
Please remember to always state
- what you wanted to achieve;
- what you did (the version of git and the command sequence to reproduce
the behavior);
- what you saw happen (X above);
- what you expected to see (Y above); and
- how the last two are different.
See https://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/bugs.html for further
hints. Our `git bugreport` tool gives you a handy way you can use to
make sure you do not forget these points when filing a bug report.
If you think you found a security-sensitive issue and want to disclose
it to us without announcing it to wider public, please contact us at
our security mailing list <git-security@googlegroups•com>. This is
a closed list that is limited to people who need to know early about
vulnerabilities, including:
- people triaging and fixing reported vulnerabilities
- people operating major git hosting sites with many users
- people packaging and distributing git to large numbers of people
where these issues are discussed without risk of the information
leaking out before we're ready to make public announcements.
* Repositories and documentation.
My public git.git repositories are (mirrored) at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git/
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/alt-git.git/
https://github.com/git/git/
https://gitlab.com/git-scm/git/
This one shows not just the main integration branches, but also
individual topics broken out:
https://github.com/gitster/git/
A few web interfaces are found at:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git.git
https://kernel.googlesource.com/pub/scm/git/git
https://repo.or.cz/w/alt-git.git
Preformatted documentation from the tip of the "master" branch can be
found in:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/git/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://repo.or.cz/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
https://github.com/gitster/git-{htmldocs,manpages}.git/
The manual pages formatted in HTML for the tip of "master" can be
viewed online at:
https://git.github.io/htmldocs/git.html
* How various branches are used.
There are four "integration" branches in git.git repository that track
the source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "seen". They
however almost never get new commits made directly on them. Instead,
a branch is forked from either "master" or "maint" for each "topic",
whether it is a new feature or a fix for a bug, and holds a set of
commits that belong to the same theme. Such a "topic branch" is then
merged to these integration branches.
The "master" branch is meant to contain what are very well tested and
ready to be used in a production setting. Every now and then, a
"feature release" is cut from the tip of this branch. They used to be
named with three dotted decimal digits (e.g., "1.8.5"), but we have
switched the versioning scheme and "feature releases" are named with
ttwo-dotted decimal digits (e.g. "2.53"), whose tag ends with ".0"
(e.g., "v2.53.0").
The last such release was Git 2.53, made on Feb 2nd, 2026. We aim to
make sure that the tip of the "master" branch is always more stable
than any of the released versions.
Whenever a feature release is made, "maint" branch is forked off from
"master" at that point. Obvious and safe fixes for bugs in the latest
feature release are merged to this branch and maintenance releases are
cut from it. Usually the topic branches that contain these fixes are
merged to the "master" branch first, before getting merged to the
"maint" branch, to reduce the chance of last-minute issues, but
things like embargoed security fixes may first appear in the "maint"
and merged up to "master" at the same time. The maintenance releases
used to be named with four dotted decimal, named after the feature
release they are updates to (e.g., "1.8.5.1" was the first maintenance
release for "1.8.5" feature release). These days, maintenance releases
are named by incrementing the last digit of three-dotted decimal name
(e.g., "2.47.1" was the second maintenance release for the "2.47" series).
New features almost never go to the "maint" branch, although changes
to help Git developers themselves, including CI updates, are often
merged down even if they are not bugfixes at all. The "maint" branch
is merged up into the "master" branch, primarily to propagate the
description in the release notes forward.
When you send a series of patches, after review discussions on the
mailing list, a separate topic branch is forked from the tip of
"master" (or somewhere older, especially when the topic is about
fixing an earlier bug) and your patches are applied on that topic
branch, and kept out of "master" while people test it out. The
quality of topic branches are judged primarily by the mailing list
discussions.
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master". This process depends on
your participation, as the way you use Git may be unique from others,
and a new bug may only manifest itself when used in the way you use
Git, not noticed by others.
The "seen" branch bundles the remaining topic branches that the
maintainer happens to have seen to remind the maintainer that the
topics in them might become interesting when they are polished. A
topic in "seen" can and does get discarded before it gets merged to
"next" if its idea does not pan out, just like a topic can wither on
the list without anybody supporting it. Please do not read anything
more than "the maintainer has seen it and found it potentially
interesting" into a topic being in "seen".
The contributors can use the "seen" branch to anticipate what topics
by others may cause conflicts with their own work, and find people who
are working on these topics to talk to before the potential conflicts
get out of control. It would be a good idea to fork your work from
maint or master and to (1) test it by itself, (2) test a temporary
merge of it to "next" and (3) test a temporary merge to it to "seen",
before sending it to the list (or asking GitGitGadget to send it to
the list).
You can run "git log --oneline --first-parent master..seen" to see
what topics are currently in flight. The output of the above command
talks about a "jch" branch, which is an early part of the "seen" branch;
that branch contains all topics that are in "next" and a bit more (but
not all of "seen") and is used by the maintainer for his daily work.
The two branches "master" and "maint" are never rewound, and "next"
usually will not be either. After a feature release is made from
"master", however, "next" will be rebuilt from the tip of "master"
using the topics that didn't make the cut in the feature release.
Some topics that used to be in "next" during the previous cycle may
get ejected from "next" when this happens.
A natural consequence of how "next" and "seen" bundles topics together
is that until a topic is merged to "next", updates to it is expected
by replacing the patch(es) in the topic with an improved version, and
once a topic is merged to "next", updates to it needs to come as
incremental patches, pointing out what was wrong in the previous
patches and how the problem was corrected. The idea is that if many
reviewers thought it has seen enough eyeballs and is good enough for
"next", yet we later find that there was something we all missed, that
is worth a separate explanation, e.g., "The primary motivation behind
the series is still good, but for such and such reasons we missed this
case we are fixing.", hence we prefer follow-up incremental patches.
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next". The same
can be said to "master"---there were cases that we needed to revert a
topic from it because a regression was found after it was merged to
"master", instead of while it was still in "next". To prevent it from
happening, those who care about the quality of the next release, those
who want to ensure that the next release will not break their
workflow, are strongly encouraged to build and try out "next" in their
daily work and report problems.
* Other people's trees.
Documentation/SubmittingPatches outlines to whom your proposed changes
should be sent. As described in contrib/README, I would delegate fixes
and enhancements in contrib/ area to the primary contributors of them.
Although the following are included in git.git repository, they have their
own authoritative repository and maintainers:
- git-gui/ comes from git-gui project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/git-gui
- gitk-git/ comes from gitk project, maintained by Johannes Sixt:
https://github.com/j6t/gitk
- po/ comes from the localization coordinator, Jiang Xin:
https://github.com/git-l10n/git-po/
When sending proposed updates and fixes to these parts of the system,
please base your patches on these trees, not git.git (the former two
even have different directory structures).
* Other places.
As the Git ecosystem has grown larger over the years, there are
documentation sites and third-party tools that have been created and
maintained by friendly third-parties. Reporting issues with them to
the main mailing list is still welcomed by the list participants, but
most likely you will be asked to contact these third-parties directly.
- git-scm website (https://www.git-scm.com/) is maintained directly
on its GitHub repository and its issues are managed there.
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/issues
https://github.com/git/git-scm.com/?tab=readme-ov-file#contributing
- Git for Windows (https://gitforwindows.org/) is a project that
packages (core) Git software with some other goodies for the
Windows platform. They manage their own issues list and their
changes are managed directly on GitHub via pull requests, focused
primarily on Windows specific issues and their additions (like
Windows installer).
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/wiki/How-to-participate
https://github.com/git-for-windows/git/issues
- The online edition of ProGit Book hosted at git-scm.com/book/ is
managed by the Pro Git book folks, and they maintain their work and
issues at their GitHub repository.
https://github.com/progit/progit2/issues
https://github.com/progit/progit2/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
* Re: A note from the maintainer
2026-02-02 18:36 A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
@ 2026-02-02 19:22 ` Junio C Hamano
0 siblings, 0 replies; 144+ messages in thread
From: Junio C Hamano @ 2026-02-02 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: git
In addition to the usual version bump to say "the latest feature
release is 2.53 done today", this update includes a request to
people to build and try "next" in their daily work to prevent
undiscovered bugs getting to "master" and breaking their workflow.
Here are excerpts from relevant paragraphs in "diff --word-diff"
form (i.e., new words are shown as {+new words+}, removed ones are
shown as {-removed words-}).
...
Topic branches that are in good shape are merged to the "next" branch.
The "next" branch is where new and exciting things take place. In
general, the "next" branch always contains the tip of "master". It
might not be quite rock-solid, but is expected to work more or less
without major breakage. A topic that is in "next" is expected to be
polished to perfection before it is merged to "master". Please help
this process by building & using the "next" branch for your daily
work, and reporting any new bugs you find to the mailing list, before
the breakage is merged down to the "master". {+This process depends on+}
{+your participation, as the way you use Git may be unique from others,+}
{+and a new bug may only manifest itself when used in the way you use+}
{+Git, not noticed by others.+}
...
Note that being in "next" is not a guarantee to appear in the next
release, nor even in any future release. There were cases that topics
needed reverting a few commits in them before graduating to "master",
or a topic that already was in "next" was reverted from "next" because
fatal flaws were found in it after it was merged to "next". {+The same+}
{+can be said to "master"---there were cases that we needed to revert a+}
{+topic from it because a regression was found after it was merged to+}
{+"master", instead of while it was still in "next". To prevent it from+}
{+happening, those who care about the quality of the next release, those+}
{+who want to ensure that the next release will not break their+}
{+workflow, are strongly encouraged to build and try out "next" in their+}
{+daily work and report problems.+}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 144+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-02-02 19:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 144+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-01-27 21:31 [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9 Junio C Hamano
2012-01-27 21:41 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2012-01-27 21:43 ` What's cooking in git.git (Jan 2012, #06; Fri, 27) Junio C Hamano
2012-01-28 5:37 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-01-28 17:23 ` Felipe Contreras
2012-01-30 8:47 ` Matthieu Moy
2012-02-02 20:50 ` [ANNOUNCE] Git 1.7.9 Jakub Narebski
[not found] ` <CAPc5daVhXQ3-TCqZi8di=j5LdpwXZUt3bO8KkvA2UmL6axCRqQ@mail.gmail.com>
2012-02-03 12:52 ` Jakub Narebski
2012-02-03 19:41 ` Junio C Hamano
2012-02-03 20:55 ` Jakub Narebski
2012-02-03 21:49 ` [PATCH] git.spec: Workaround localized messages not put in any RPM Jakub Narebski
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2026-02-02 18:36 A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2026-02-02 19:22 ` Junio C Hamano
2025-11-18 22:23 Junio C Hamano
2025-08-18 17:21 Junio C Hamano
2025-06-16 17:28 Junio C Hamano
2025-03-14 17:26 Junio C Hamano
2025-01-10 18:54 Junio C Hamano
2024-11-25 7:57 Junio C Hamano
2024-10-07 16:13 Junio C Hamano
2024-08-14 22:44 Junio C Hamano
2024-04-29 17:22 Junio C Hamano
2024-05-01 1:45 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-20 16:07 Junio C Hamano
2024-03-21 0:03 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-21 1:01 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-21 1:38 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-21 13:12 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-22 1:14 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-22 2:06 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-22 2:35 ` Brian Lyles
2024-03-22 2:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2023-03-13 18:02 Junio C Hamano
2022-12-11 5:18 Junio C Hamano
2022-10-03 17:26 Junio C Hamano
2022-07-12 17:08 Junio C Hamano
2022-06-27 18:22 Junio C Hamano
2022-04-18 17:03 Junio C Hamano
2022-01-24 19:25 Junio C Hamano
2021-08-16 23:06 Junio C Hamano
2021-06-06 14:14 Junio C Hamano
2021-03-26 22:53 Junio C Hamano
2021-03-27 6:59 ` Bagas Sanjaya
2021-03-15 19:34 Junio C Hamano
2020-12-28 19:09 Junio C Hamano
2020-10-29 22:27 Junio C Hamano
2020-07-17 20:27 Junio C Hamano
2020-06-01 16:33 Junio C Hamano
2020-06-14 11:26 ` Kaartic Sivaraam
2020-06-15 16:58 ` Junio C Hamano
2019-02-26 17:15 Junio C Hamano
2017-11-28 5:20 Junio C Hamano
2017-10-30 6:19 Junio C Hamano
2017-10-30 12:50 ` Johannes Schindelin
2017-08-04 16:54 Junio C Hamano
2017-07-13 23:43 Junio C Hamano
2017-06-24 23:24 Junio C Hamano
2017-03-24 21:19 Junio C Hamano
2017-03-20 21:39 Junio C Hamano
2017-02-24 19:29 Junio C Hamano
2016-11-29 21:24 Junio C Hamano
2016-10-03 22:31 Junio C Hamano
2016-09-03 2:17 Junio C Hamano
2016-09-03 10:26 ` Jakub Narębski
2016-09-07 16:16 ` Junio C Hamano
2016-08-12 19:55 Junio C Hamano
2016-08-12 22:42 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-13 8:10 ` Jeff King
2016-08-13 9:04 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-13 11:14 ` Jeff King
2016-08-14 1:27 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-14 2:12 ` Eric Wong
2016-08-14 12:23 ` Jeff King
2016-08-14 12:19 ` Jeff King
2016-08-14 15:00 ` Philip Oakley
2016-08-14 22:52 ` Eric Wong
2016-07-11 20:14 Junio C Hamano
2016-06-13 19:45 Junio C Hamano
2016-05-19 17:48 Junio C Hamano
2016-04-29 22:04 Junio C Hamano
2016-03-28 22:42 Junio C Hamano
2016-02-06 0:07 Junio C Hamano
2016-01-04 23:44 Junio C Hamano
2015-11-05 23:14 Junio C Hamano
2015-11-06 10:50 ` Xue Fuqiao
2015-11-06 17:38 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-09-28 23:20 Junio C Hamano
2015-08-28 21:12 Junio C Hamano
2015-07-15 21:43 Junio C Hamano
2015-04-30 19:51 Junio C Hamano
2015-05-08 14:46 ` Christian Couder
2015-05-08 16:25 ` Junio C Hamano
2015-03-23 21:38 Junio C Hamano
2015-03-06 23:33 Junio C Hamano
2015-02-05 22:53 Junio C Hamano
2014-11-26 23:09 Junio C Hamano
2013-03-13 20:26 Junio C Hamano
2013-01-28 20:48 Junio C Hamano
2013-01-01 0:27 Junio C Hamano
2012-12-10 23:16 Junio C Hamano
2012-10-21 22:10 Junio C Hamano
2012-10-08 20:08 Junio C Hamano
2012-09-18 23:14 Junio C Hamano
2012-08-20 3:16 Junio C Hamano
2012-06-19 23:53 Junio C Hamano
2012-03-06 7:10 Junio C Hamano
2011-10-24 15:32 Junio C Hamano
2011-10-05 2:22 Junio C Hamano
2011-10-15 5:47 ` Martin von Zweigbergk
2011-10-16 7:24 ` Junio C Hamano
2011-08-24 23:51 Junio C Hamano
2011-04-25 21:05 A Note from the Maintainer Junio C Hamano
2011-01-31 5:51 A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2010-09-19 1:28 Junio C Hamano
2010-07-21 22:18 Junio C Hamano
2010-02-13 1:24 Junio C Hamano
2010-01-01 0:09 Junio C Hamano
2009-07-29 21:15 Junio C Hamano
2009-05-07 7:09 Junio C Hamano
2009-05-07 13:40 ` Baz
2009-05-07 16:30 ` Junio C Hamano
2009-03-04 19:52 Junio C Hamano
2008-12-25 6:48 Junio C Hamano
2008-08-17 21:16 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.6.0 Junio C Hamano
2008-08-17 23:58 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2008-06-18 23:24 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.6 Junio C Hamano
2008-06-19 7:24 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2008-07-14 5:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-04-09 9:44 Junio C Hamano
2008-02-17 9:16 Junio C Hamano
2008-03-09 10:57 ` Junio C Hamano
2008-02-02 4:35 Junio C Hamano
2008-02-02 11:06 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-01-08 8:57 Junio C Hamano
2008-01-08 9:57 ` Jakub Narebski
2008-01-08 10:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-09-02 6:31 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.3 Junio C Hamano
2007-09-02 6:34 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 9:12 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.1 Junio C Hamano
2007-04-04 18:26 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2007-05-20 9:54 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-02-14 3:14 [ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.0 Junio C Hamano
2007-02-16 22:31 ` A note from the maintainer Junio C Hamano
2007-02-17 2:35 ` Johannes Schindelin
2007-02-23 6:03 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-01-02 3:31 Junio C Hamano
2007-01-02 3:47 ` Shawn O. Pearce
2006-10-24 9:16 Junio C Hamano
2006-10-24 9:37 ` Jakub Narebski
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox