mirrors/git
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/git/git.git synced 2024-11-14 21:23:03 +01:00
Code Activity
git/Documentation/urls.txt

70 lines
2.3 KiB
Text
Raw Normal View History

Docs: move git url and remotes text to separate sections The sections on git urls and remotes files in the git-fetch, git-pull, and git-push manpages seem long enough to be worth a manpage section of their own. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-06 00:29:49 +01:00
GIT URLS[[URLS]]
----------------
Docs: split up pull-fetch-param.txt The push and pull man pages include a bunch of shared text from pull-fetch-param.txt. This simplifies maintenance somewhat, but there's actually quite a bit of text that applies only to one or the other. So, separate out the push- and pull/fetch-specific text into pull-fetch-param.txt and git-push.txt, then include the largest chunk of common stuff (the description of protocols and url's) from urls.txt. That cuts some irrelevant stuff from the man pages without making us duplicate too much. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-05 23:43:47 +01:00
One of the following notations can be used
to name the remote repository:
Docs: move git url and remotes text to separate sections The sections on git urls and remotes files in the git-fetch, git-pull, and git-push manpages seem long enough to be worth a manpage section of their own. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-06 00:29:49 +01:00
Docs: split up pull-fetch-param.txt The push and pull man pages include a bunch of shared text from pull-fetch-param.txt. This simplifies maintenance somewhat, but there's actually quite a bit of text that applies only to one or the other. So, separate out the push- and pull/fetch-specific text into pull-fetch-param.txt and git-push.txt, then include the largest chunk of common stuff (the description of protocols and url's) from urls.txt. That cuts some irrelevant stuff from the man pages without making us duplicate too much. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-05 23:43:47 +01:00
===============================================================
- rsync://host.xz/path/to/repo.git/
- http://host.xz/path/to/repo.git/
- https://host.xz/path/to/repo.git/
- git://host.xz/path/to/repo.git/
- git://host.xz/~user/path/to/repo.git/
URL: allow port specification in ssh:// URLs Allow port specification in ssh:// URLs in the usual notation: ssh://[user@]host.domain[:<port>]/<path> This allows git to be used over ssh-tunneling networks. Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-09-01 11:36:31 +02:00
- ssh://{startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz{startsb}:port{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
Documentation/urls.txt: Use substitution to escape square brackets This changes "[user@]" to use {startsb} and {endsb} to insert [ and ], similar to how {caret} is used in git-rev-parse.txt. [jc: Removed a well-intentioned comment that broke the final formatting from the original patch. While we are at it, updated the paragraph that claims to be equivalent to the section that was updated earlier without making matching changes.] Signed-off-by: Jonas Fonseca <fonseca@diku.dk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-07-15 01:36:00 +02:00
- ssh://{startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz/path/to/repo.git/
- ssh://{startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz/~user/path/to/repo.git/
- ssh://{startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz/~/path/to/repo.git
Docs: split up pull-fetch-param.txt The push and pull man pages include a bunch of shared text from pull-fetch-param.txt. This simplifies maintenance somewhat, but there's actually quite a bit of text that applies only to one or the other. So, separate out the push- and pull/fetch-specific text into pull-fetch-param.txt and git-push.txt, then include the largest chunk of common stuff (the description of protocols and url's) from urls.txt. That cuts some irrelevant stuff from the man pages without making us duplicate too much. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-05 23:43:47 +01:00
===============================================================
Docs: move git url and remotes text to separate sections The sections on git urls and remotes files in the git-fetch, git-pull, and git-push manpages seem long enough to be worth a manpage section of their own. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-06 00:29:49 +01:00
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
SSH is the default transport protocol over the network. You can
optionally specify which user to log-in as, and an alternate,
scp-like syntax is also supported. Both syntaxes support
URL: allow port specification in ssh:// URLs Allow port specification in ssh:// URLs in the usual notation: ssh://[user@]host.domain[:<port>]/<path> This allows git to be used over ssh-tunneling networks. Signed-off-by: Luben Tuikov <ltuikov@yahoo.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-09-01 11:36:31 +02:00
username expansion, as does the native git protocol, but
only the former supports port specification. The following
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
three are identical to the last three above, respectively:
Docs: move git url and remotes text to separate sections The sections on git urls and remotes files in the git-fetch, git-pull, and git-push manpages seem long enough to be worth a manpage section of their own. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-06 00:29:49 +01:00
Docs: split up pull-fetch-param.txt The push and pull man pages include a bunch of shared text from pull-fetch-param.txt. This simplifies maintenance somewhat, but there's actually quite a bit of text that applies only to one or the other. So, separate out the push- and pull/fetch-specific text into pull-fetch-param.txt and git-push.txt, then include the largest chunk of common stuff (the description of protocols and url's) from urls.txt. That cuts some irrelevant stuff from the man pages without making us duplicate too much. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-05 23:43:47 +01:00
===============================================================
Documentation/urls.txt: Use substitution to escape square brackets This changes "[user@]" to use {startsb} and {endsb} to insert [ and ], similar to how {caret} is used in git-rev-parse.txt. [jc: Removed a well-intentioned comment that broke the final formatting from the original patch. While we are at it, updated the paragraph that claims to be equivalent to the section that was updated earlier without making matching changes.] Signed-off-by: Jonas Fonseca <fonseca@diku.dk> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-07-15 01:36:00 +02:00
- {startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz:/path/to/repo.git/
- {startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz:~user/path/to/repo.git/
- {startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz:path/to/repo.git
Docs: split up pull-fetch-param.txt The push and pull man pages include a bunch of shared text from pull-fetch-param.txt. This simplifies maintenance somewhat, but there's actually quite a bit of text that applies only to one or the other. So, separate out the push- and pull/fetch-specific text into pull-fetch-param.txt and git-push.txt, then include the largest chunk of common stuff (the description of protocols and url's) from urls.txt. That cuts some irrelevant stuff from the man pages without making us duplicate too much. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-05 23:43:47 +01:00
===============================================================
Docs: move git url and remotes text to separate sections The sections on git urls and remotes files in the git-fetch, git-pull, and git-push manpages seem long enough to be worth a manpage section of their own. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-06 00:29:49 +01:00
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
To sync with a local directory, you can use:
Docs: move git url and remotes text to separate sections The sections on git urls and remotes files in the git-fetch, git-pull, and git-push manpages seem long enough to be worth a manpage section of their own. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-06 00:29:49 +01:00
Docs: split up pull-fetch-param.txt The push and pull man pages include a bunch of shared text from pull-fetch-param.txt. This simplifies maintenance somewhat, but there's actually quite a bit of text that applies only to one or the other. So, separate out the push- and pull/fetch-specific text into pull-fetch-param.txt and git-push.txt, then include the largest chunk of common stuff (the description of protocols and url's) from urls.txt. That cuts some irrelevant stuff from the man pages without making us duplicate too much. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-05 23:43:47 +01:00
===============================================================
- /path/to/repo.git/
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
- file:///path/to/repo.git/
Docs: split up pull-fetch-param.txt The push and pull man pages include a bunch of shared text from pull-fetch-param.txt. This simplifies maintenance somewhat, but there's actually quite a bit of text that applies only to one or the other. So, separate out the push- and pull/fetch-specific text into pull-fetch-param.txt and git-push.txt, then include the largest chunk of common stuff (the description of protocols and url's) from urls.txt. That cuts some irrelevant stuff from the man pages without making us duplicate too much. Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@citi.umich.edu> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
2006-02-05 23:43:47 +01:00
===============================================================
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
Documentation: fix git-clone manpage not to refer to itself Signed-off-by: Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-11-16 19:43:16 +01:00
ifndef::git-clone[]
git-clone: aggressively optimize local clone behaviour. This changes the behaviour of cloning from a repository on the local machine, by defaulting to "-l" (use hardlinks to share files under .git/objects) and making "-l" a no-op. A new option, --no-hardlinks, is also added to cause file-level copy of files under .git/objects while still avoiding the normal "pack to pipe, then receive and index pack" network transfer overhead. The old behaviour of local cloning without -l nor -s is availble by specifying the source repository with the newly introduced file:///path/to/repo.git/ syntax (i.e. "same as network" cloning). * With --no-hardlinks (i.e. have all .git/objects/ copied via cpio) would not catch the source repository corruption, and also risks corrupted recipient repository if an alpha-particle hits memory cell while indexing and resolving deltas. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * same-as-network is expensive, but it would catch the breakage of the source repository. It still risks corrupted recipient repository due to hardware failure. As long as the recipient is created uncorrupted, you have a good back-up. * The new default on the same filesystem, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is very likely that the recipient would be, too. Also it is very cheap. You do not get any back-up benefit, though. None of the method is resilient against the source repository corruption, so let's discount that from the comparison. Then the difference with and without --no-hardlinks matters primarily if you value the back-up benefit or not. If you want to use the cloned repository as a back-up, then it is cheaper to do a clone with --no-hardlinks and two git-fsck (source before clone, recipient after clone) than same-as-network clone, especially as you are likely to do a git-fsck on the recipient if you are so paranoid anyway. Which leads me to believe that being able to use file:/// is probably a good idea, if only for testability, but probably of little practical value. We default to hardlinked clone for everyday use, and paranoids can use --no-hardlinks as a way to make a back-up. Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-08-02 08:42:36 +02:00
They are mostly equivalent, except when cloning. See
Documentation: rename gitlink macro to linkgit Between AsciiDoc 8.2.2 and 8.2.3, the following change was made to the stock Asciidoc configuration: @@ -149,7 +153,10 @@ # Inline macros. # Backslash prefix required for escape processing. # (?s) re flag for line spanning. -(?su)[\\]?(?P<name>\w(\w|-)*?):(?P<target>\S*?)(\[(?P<attrlist>.*?)\])= + +# Explicit so they can be nested. +(?su)[\\]?(?P<name>(http|https|ftp|file|mailto|callto|image|link)):(?P<target>\S*?)(\[(?P<attrlist>.*?)\])= + # Anchor: [[[id]]]. Bibliographic anchor. (?su)[\\]?\[\[\[(?P<attrlist>[\w][\w-]*?)\]\]\]=anchor3 # Anchor: [[id,xreflabel]] This default regex now matches explicit values, and unfortunately in this case gitlink was being matched by just 'link', causing the wrong inline macro template to be applied. By renaming the macro, we can avoid being matched by the wrong regex. Signed-off-by: Dan McGee <dpmcgee@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-12-29 07:20:38 +01:00
linkgit:git-clone[1] for details.
Documentation: fix git-clone manpage not to refer to itself Signed-off-by: Sergei Organov <osv@javad.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2007-11-16 19:43:16 +01:00
endif::git-clone[]
ifdef::git-clone[]
They are equivalent, except the former implies --local option.
endif::git-clone[]
Add support for url aliases in config files This allows users with different preferences for access methods to the same remote repositories to rewrite each other's URLs by pattern matching across a large set of similiarly set up repositories to each get the desired access. For example, if you don't have a kernel.org account, you might want settings like: [url "git://git.kernel.org/pub/"] insteadOf = master.kernel.org:/pub Then, if you give git a URL like: master.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-2.6.git it will act like you gave it: git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/linville/wireless-2.6.git and you can cut-and-paste pull requests in email without fixing them by hand, for example. Signed-off-by: Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
2008-02-20 19:43:53 +01:00
If there are a large number of similarly-named remote repositories and
you want to use a different format for them (such that the URLs you
use will be rewritten into URLs that work), you can create a
configuration section of the form:
------------
[url "<actual url base>"]
insteadOf = <other url base>
------------
For example, with this:
------------
[url "git://git.host.xz/"]
insteadOf = host.xz:/path/to/
insteadOf = work:
------------
a URL like "work:repo.git" or like "host.xz:/path/to/repo.git" will be
rewritten in any context that takes a URL to be "git://git.host.xz/repo.git".
Copy permalink