Re: git patch

[Graham Percival]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Graham Percival wrote:
>
> > I'm reluctant to post to the git mailing list because I'm completely willing
> > to admit that this is probably a stupid luser problem.  I never seriously
>
> I would like to post your mail (anonymized, of course) to the git list. 

OK, I just sent it.  (I'm not concerned about not looking like an idiot, 
but thanks.  :)

> Hmm. Yes. It would be a pretty good idea, I think, to tell _everybody_ 
> that "git pull" is _the_ equivalent to "cvs update". So, if you cloned 
> your local git repository with "git clone" from the upstream, you can 
> merge the upstream repository with "git pull".

Definitely.

> > Trying really trivial in-index merge...
> > Documentation/user/advanced-notation.itely: needs merge
> > fatal: you need to resolve your current index first
>
> This is really obscure, you're right. What Git means: 
> advanced-notation.itely was not committed yet.

Eh?  advanced-notation.itely has been in the tree for over a year!  ... 
oh wait, this is a cvs/git translation thing, right?  AFAIK, 
"committing" means "uploading my changes so other people can get them".

> With Git, branches really are a serious tool. Even if Mats and you thought 
> you were working on the same branch, you really were not! Just by using 
> git, you already had your own private branch.
>
> So, before trying to merge your work with Mats' work, you _have_ to commit 
> your changes! This was impossible with CVS, since CVS basically allows 
> only linear development and makes anything else _hard_.
>
> So, first commit your changes, _then_ merge other's work.

I'm pretty certain that I committed all my changes, though... I remember 
doing "git commit Documentation/user/advanced.itely".  When I do "gitk", 
I can see all my changes.  I just can't see any changes that happed 
after I did my initial checkout.


> > fatal: Entry '.gitignore' would be overwritten by merge. Cannot merge.
>
> If I'm correct, this means that you have a file named ".gitignore" in your 
> working directory, which is either not versioned yet, or modified.

I have a ".gitignore".  I didn't change that file.  Git put it there in 
my initial checkout, somebody (Han-Wen I think) modified that file after 
I did my checkout, and now git is complaining about it.

How do I tell git "ignore whatever you think I've done to .gitignore. 
Just go online and give me the most recent version" ?  :)


> Again, you can just commit it (if it is not already in the repository, you 
> will need to add it with "git add .gitignore"), and _then_ merge your 
> work.

tsubasa:~/usr/src/lilypond gperciva$ git status
# Updated but not checked in:
#   (will commit)
#
#       modified:   .gitignore
#       modified:   Documentation/topdocs/NEWS.tely
#       modified:   Documentation/user/advanced-notation.itely
#       modified:   Documentation/user/basic-notation.itely
#       modified:   Documentation/user/spacing.itely
#       modified:   GNUmakefile.in
#       modified:   SConstruct
#       modified:   THANKS
...

I changed advanced-notation.itely, but everything else was done by other 
people (mainly Han-Wen).  I want to get their changes.  Is that what 
"modified" means?  I thought it meant that _I_ had changed a file.


> I try to translate:
>
> $ git clone blah blah
> $ while (true) {
> $    git pull      # get latest changes; you must have a clean working dir
> $    vi foo/bar/baz.txt
> $    make; make web
> $    git commit -a # you will be prompted for a meaningful message
> $ # alternatively: git commit foo/bar/baz.txt
> $ }

Ok.  I think I'll delete my current ~/usr/src/lilypond and start again 
from scratch.

Cheers
- Graham