Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Marco Costalba]

Johannes Schindelin wrote:

>Hi,
>
>On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Marco Costalba wrote:
>
>>P.S: I say 'revision', and 'git archive' but are very common also 
>>'commit' and 'git repository'. This is just a silly example where a 
>>common dictionary should be useful.
>
>
>How about the glossary, which I posted a few hours ago?
>
>Ciao,
>Dscho
>
>

Yeah, I missed it.

Sorry for the noise.

By the way, a very good and useful job.

>
>revision::
>	A particular state of files and directories which was stored in
>	the object database. It is referenced by a commit object.
>


>
>commit object::
>	An object which contains the information about a particular
>	revision, such as parents, committer, author, date and the
>	tree object which corresponds to the top directory of the
>	stored revision.
>

So 'revision' is the struct and 'commit object' the pointer ;-)



>
>repository::
>	A collection of refs together with an object database containing
>	all objects, which are reachable from the refs. A repository can
>	share an object database with other repositories.
>

In a lot of git documentation, starting from the tutorial, it is used 'git archive' 
but peraphs 'repository' is more a standard definition for an SCM archive. 
Just archive peraphs is too generic, also a tarball is an archive :-)

Marco


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Junio C Hamano]

Marco Costalba <mcostalba@yahoo.it> writes:

>>revision::
>>	A particular state of files and directories which was stored in
>>	the object database. It is referenced by a commit object.
>>
>>commit object::
>>	An object which contains the information about a particular
>>	revision, such as parents, committer, author, date and the
>>	tree object which corresponds to the top directory of the
>>	stored revision.
> So 'revision' is the struct and 'commit object' the pointer ;-)

It would be more like "revision" is a concept represented (not
"referenced") by a commit object.

>>repository::
>>	A collection of refs together with an object database containing
>>	all objects, which are reachable from the refs. A repository can
>>	share an object database with other repositories.
>>
>
> In a lot of git documentation, starting from the tutorial, it is used 'git archive' 
> but peraphs 'repository' is more a standard definition for an SCM archive. 
> Just archive peraphs is too generic, also a tarball is an archive :-)

Agreed.  I personally think the word "archive" on this list came
from people who have some degree of tla background.  CVS and SVN
people would have said repository.

Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Marco Costalba <mcostalba@yahoo.it> writes:
> 
> > So 'revision' is the struct and 'commit object' the pointer ;-)
> 
> It would be more like "revision" is a concept represented (not
> "referenced") by a commit object.

Actually, I think it is "referenced", because the commit object contains a 
little metadata, and then only refs (pointers).

> Agreed.  I personally think the word "archive" on this list came
> from people who have some degree of tla background.  CVS and SVN
> people would have said repository.

I'll add it anyway.

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Marco Costalba wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > [...]
> >
> By the way, a very good and useful job.

Thank you! While I think it is one of the less-fun and less-think jobs, it 
might be good to have it for people o look it up all the time.

> So 'revision' is the struct and 'commit object' the pointer ;-)

As I said in another mail: Yes!

Ciao,
Dscho

git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Marco Costalba]

Hi, 

the round trip 

1)  git-format-patch --mbox --keep-subject

2)  git-applymbox -k

is not perfect for revisions where there is only the subject.

An example is c35a7b8d806317dc1762e36561cbd31c2530dd9c in git archive

Original text is:

   Skip merges in format-patch.


After round trip:

 Skip merges in format-patch.

   
    git-format-patch-script |    3 ++-
    1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
   
   c35a7b8d806317dc1762e36561cbd31c2530dd9c



I know I'm a bit annoying ;-)

Marco

P.S: I say 'revision', and 'git archive' but are very common also 'commit' and
'git repository'. This is just a silly example where a common dictionary 
should be useful.


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Marco Costalba wrote:

> P.S: I say 'revision', and 'git archive' but are very common also 
> 'commit' and 'git repository'. This is just a silly example where a 
> common dictionary should be useful.

How about the glossary, which I posted a few hours ago?

Ciao,
Dscho

Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Junio C Hamano]

Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Marco Costalba wrote:
>
>> P.S: I say 'revision', and 'git archive' but are very common also 
>> 'commit' and 'git repository'. This is just a silly example where a 
>> common dictionary should be useful.

I think 'commit' and 'repository' are more commonly seen here.

> How about the glossary, which I posted a few hours ago?

Which is very good.  Thanks.  Mind if I put it under
Documentation/ in its current shape?

Re: git-format-patch + git-applymbox small issue

[Johannes Schindelin]

Hi,

On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, 17 Aug 2005, Marco Costalba wrote:
> >
> >> P.S: I say 'revision', and 'git archive' but are very common also 
> >> 'commit' and 'git repository'. This is just a silly example where a 
> >> common dictionary should be useful.
> 
> I think 'commit' and 'repository' are more commonly seen here.
> 
> > How about the glossary, which I posted a few hours ago?
> 
> Which is very good.  Thanks.  Mind if I put it under
> Documentation/ in its current shape?

I'd be honoured! Though I think that peu a peu, useful suggestions trickle 
in. But I can handle these as a patch, right?

Ciao,
Dscho