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>
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>
Since git-clone is one of the many commands taking
URLs to remote repositories as an argument, it should include
the URL-types list from urls.txt.
Split up urls.txt into urls.txt and urls-remotes.txt. The latter
should be used by anything besides git-clone where a discussion of
using .git/config and .git/remotes/ to name URLs just doesn't make
as much sense.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Ruder <andy@aeruder.net>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
The line:
[remote "<remote>"]
was getting swallowed up by asciidoc, causing a critical line in the
explanation for how to store the .git/remotes information in .git/config
to go missing from the git-fetch, git-pull, and git-push manpages.
Put all of the examples into delimited blocks to fix this problem and to
make them look nicer.
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
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>
Earlier commit c3f17061 broke asciidoc markup.
Noticed by Alp Toker with a fix, but fixed up in a way with smaller
formatting impact.
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
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>
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>
