Jump to content

Git: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
typo
This is FUD and OR. Wikipedia is not a place of publishing opinions. Cleanup of sentence structure, removing out of date comments
Line 182: Line 182:


== Criticisms ==
== Criticisms ==
⚫
Git has been criticized for its usability, documentation, and design.<ref>http://changelog.complete.org/posts/594-More-on-Git,-Mercurial,-and-Bzr.html "More on Git, Mercurial, and Bzr" by John Goerzen</ref><ref>http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2007/03/24/git-and-hg/ "Git and hg" by Ted Tso</ref><ref>http://pcapriotti.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/some-thoughts-on-git/ "Some Thoughts On Git" by Paolo Capriotti.</ref>

⚫
While Git has many technical strengths it has been criticized for its usability and documentation.<ref>http://changelog.complete.org/posts/594-More-on-Git,-Mercurial,-and-Bzr.html "More on Git, Mercurial, and Bzr" by John Goerzen</ref><ref>http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2007/03/24/git-and-hg/ "Git and hg" by Ted Tso</ref>


Some specific criticisms are:
Some specific criticisms are:


* Man pages reference other man pages in order to describe basic functionality as well as the meaning of command-line arguments.
* Poor and/or out of date tutorials.
⚫
* Missing features that other more mature version control systems provide.
* Sparse man pages.
* Failure to document arguments available for commands, or documentation by referencing another man page within a man page.
* A focus on the needs of the central maintainer rather than the needs of individual contributors.
* Excessive and unnecessary complexity.
* Occasional inconsistency between behavior of important commands.
⚫
* Failure to provide the breadth of features that a more mature version control system provides.

The software design itself has been criticized as well.<ref>http://pcapriotti.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/some-thoughts-on-git/ "Some Thoughts On Git" by Paolo Capriotti.</ref>

Some of these criticisms include:
*Poorly organized and hard to read source code.
*No support for integration with third party programs.
*Minimal documentation for the software API.
*Overly modularized software functions, at the expense of clarity and simplicity of design.
*Poor (not native) Windows support.


== See also ==
== See also ==

Revision as of 00:05, 18 June 2008

Git
Original author(s)Linus Torvalds
Developer(s)Junio Hamano, Linus Torvalds
Stable release
1.5.5.3[1] / May 26 2008
Repository
Written inC, Bourne Shell, Perl[2]
Operating systemPOSIX
TypeRevision control system
LicenseGNU General Public License v2
Websitehttp://git.or.cz/

Git is a distributed revision control / software code management project created by Linus Torvalds, initially for the Linux kernel development.

Git's design was inspired by BitKeeper and Monotone.[3][4] Git was originally designed only as a low-level engine that others could use to write front ends such as Cogito or StGIT.[5] However, the core Git project has since become a complete revision control system that is usable directly.[6] Several high-profile software projects now use Git for revision control,[7] most notably the Linux kernel, X.org Server, One Laptop per Child (OLPC) core development,[8] and the Ruby on Rails web framework. [9]

Git's current software maintenance is overseen by Junio Hamano. Released under the GNU General Public License, version 2, Git is free software.

Name

Linus Torvalds has quipped about the name "git", which is British English slang for a stupid or unpleasant person: [10]

I'm an egotistical bastard, and I name all my projects after myself. First Linux, now git.

The official Git wiki also gives a number of alternative explanations for the name.[11]

Characteristics

Git's design is a synthesis of Torvalds's experience maintaining a large distributed development project, his intimate knowledge of file system performance, and an urgent need to produce a working system in short order. (See the history section for details.) These influences led to the following implementation choices:

  • Strong support for non-linear development. Git supports rapid branching and merging, and includes specific tools for visualizing and navigating a non-linear development history. A core assumption in Git is that a change will be merged more often than it is written, as it is passed around various reviewers.
  • Distributed development. Like Darcs, BitKeeper, Mercurial, SVK, Bazaar and Monotone, Git gives each developer a local copy of the entire development history, and changes are copied from one such repository to another. These changes are imported as additional development branches, and can be merged in the same way as a locally developed branch.
  • Repositories can be published via HTTP, FTP, ssh, rsync, or a Git protocol. Git also has a CVS server emulation, which enables the use of existing CVS clients and IDE plugins to access Git repositories.
  • Subversion and svk repositories can be used directly with git-svn.
  • Efficient handling of large projects. Torvalds has described Git as being very fast and scalable,[12] and performance tests done by Mozilla showed it was an order of magnitude faster than other revision control systems, and two orders of magnitude faster on some operations.[13][14]
  • Cryptographic authentication of history. The Git history is stored in such a way that the name of a particular revision (a "commit" in Git terms) depends upon the complete development history leading up to that commit. Once it is published, it is not possible to change the old versions without it being noticed. (Mercurial and Monotone also has this property.)
  • Toolkit design. Git was designed as a set of programs written in C, and a number of shell scripts that provide wrappers around those programs.[15] Although most of those scripts have been rewritten in C as part of an ongoing effort to port it to Microsoft Windows, the design remains, and it is easy to chain the components together to do other clever things.[16]
  • Pluggable merge strategies. As part of its toolkit design, Git has a well-defined model of an incomplete merge, and it has multiple algorithms for completing it, culminating in telling the user that it is unable to complete the merge automatically and manual editing is required.
  • Garbage accumulates unless collected. Aborting operations or backing out changes will leave useless dangling objects in the database. These are generally a small fraction of the continuously growing history of wanted objects, but reclaiming the space using git-gc --prune can be slow.[17]

One property of Git is that it snapshots directory trees of files. The earliest systems for tracking versions of source code, SCCS and RCS, worked on individual files and emphasized the space savings to be gained from delta encoding the (mostly similar) versions. Later revision control systems maintained this notion of a file having an identity across multiple revisions of a project.

Torvalds rejected this concept;[18] consequently, Git does not explicitly record file revision relationships at any level below the source code tree. This has some significant consequences:

  • It is slightly more expensive to examine the change history of a single file than the whole project.[19] To obtain a history of changes affecting a given file, Git must walk the global history and then determine whether each change modified that file. This method of examining history does, however, let Git produce with equal efficiency a single history showing the changes to an arbitrary set of files. For example, a subdirectory of the source tree plus an associated global header file is a very common case.
  • Renames are handled implicitly rather than explicitly. A common complaint with CVS is that it uses the name of a file to identify its revision history, so moving or renaming a file is not possible without either interrupting its history, or renaming the history and thereby making the history inaccurate. Most post-CVS revision control systems solve this by giving a file a unique long-lived name (a sort of inode number) that survives renaming. Git does not record such an identifier, and this is claimed as an advantage.[20][21] Source code files are sometimes split or merged as well as simply renamed,[22] and recording this as a simple rename would freeze an inaccurate description of what happened in the (immutable) history. Git addresses the issue by detecting renames while browsing the history of snapshots rather than recording it when making the snapshot.[23] (Briefly, given a file in revision N, a file of the same name in revision N−1 is its default ancestor. However, when there is no like-named file in revision N−1, Git searches for a file that existed only in revision N−1 and is very similar to the new file.) However, it does require more CPU-intensive work every time history is reviewed, and a number of options to adjust the heuristics.

Additionally, people are sometimes upset by the storage model:

  • Periodic explicit object packing. Git stores each newly created object as a separate file. Although individually compressed, this takes a great deal of space and is inefficient. This is solved by the use of "packs" that store a large number of objects in a single file (or network byte stream), delta-compressed among themselves. Packs are compressed using the heuristic that files with the same name are probably similar, but do not depend on it for correctness. Newly created objects (newly added history) are still stored singly, and periodic repacking is required to maintain space efficiency. Git does periodic repacking automatically but manual repacking is also possible with the git-gc command.

Git implements several merging strategies; a non-default can be selected at merge time:[24]

resolve
the traditional 3-way merge algorithm.
recursive
This is the default when pulling or merging one branch, and is a variant of the 3-way merge algorithm. "When there are more than one common ancestors that can be used for 3-way merge, it creates a merged tree of the common ancestors and uses that as the reference tree for the 3-way merge. This has been reported to result in fewer merge conflicts without causing mis-merges by tests done on actual merge commits taken from Linux 2.6 kernel development history. Additionally this can detect and handle merges involving renames."[25]
octopus
This is the default when merging more than two heads.

Early history

Git development began after many Linux kernel developers were forced to give up access to the proprietary BitKeeper system (see BitKeeper - Pricing change). The ability to use BitKeeper free of charge had been withdrawn by the copyright holder Larry McVoy after he claimed Andrew Tridgell had reverse engineered the BitKeeper protocols in violation of the BitKeeper license. At Linux.Conf.Au 2005, Tridgell demonstrated during his keynote that the reverse engineering process he had used was simply to telnet to the appropriate port of a Bitkeeper server and type "help".[26]

Torvalds wanted a distributed system that he could use like BitKeeper, but none of the available free systems met his needs, particularly his performance needs. From an e-mail he wrote on April 7 2005 while writing the first prototype:[27]

However, the SCMs I've looked at make this hard. One of the things (the main thing, in fact) I've been working at is to make that process really efficient. If it takes half a minute to apply a patch and remember the changeset boundary etc. (and quite frankly, that's fast for most SCMs around for a project the size of Linux), then a series of 250 emails (which is not unheard of at all when I sync with Andrew, for example) takes two hours. If one of the patches in the middle doesn't apply, things are bad bad bad.

Now, BK wasn't a speed demon either (actually, compared to everything else, BK is a speed deamon [sic], often by one or two orders of magnitude), and took about 10–15 seconds per email when I merged with Andrew. HOWEVER, with BK that wasn't as big of an issue, since the BK<->BK merges were so easy, so I never had the slow email merges with any of the other main developers. So a patch-application-based SCM “merger” actually would need to be faster than BK is. Which is really really really hard.

So I'm writing some scripts to try to track things a whole lot faster. Initial indications are that I should be able to do it almost as quickly as I can just apply the patch, but quite frankly, I'm at most half done, and if I hit a snag maybe that's not true at all. Anyway, the reason I can do it quickly is that my scripts will not be an SCM, they'll be a very specific “log Linus' state” kind of thing. That will make the linear patch merge a lot more time-efficient, and thus possible.

(If a patch apply takes three seconds, even a big series of patches is not a problem: if I get notified within a minute or two that it failed half-way, that's fine, I can then just fix it up manually. That's why latency is critical—if I'd have to do things effectively “offline”, I'd by definition not be able to fix it up when problems happen).

Torvalds had several design criteria:

  1. Take CVS as an example of what not to do; if in doubt, make the exact opposite decision. To quote Torvalds, speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek:
    “For the first 10 years of kernel maintenance, we literally used tarballs and patches, which is a much superior source control management system than CVS is, but I did end up using CVS for 7 years at a commercial company [presumably Transmeta] and I hate it with a passion. When I say I hate CVS with a passion, I have to also say that if there are any SVN (Subversion) users in the audience, you might want to leave. Because my hatred of CVS has meant that I see Subversion as being the most pointless project ever started. The slogan of Subversion for a while was ‘CVS done right’, or something like that, and if you start with that kind of slogan, there's nowhere you can go. There is no way to do CVS right.”[28]
  2. Support a distributed, BitKeeper-like workflow
    “BitKeeper was not only the first source control system that I ever felt was worth using at all, it was also the source control system that taught me why there's a point to them, and how you actually can do things. So Git in many ways, even though from a technical angle it is very very different from BitKeeper (which was another design goal, because I wanted to make it clear that it wasn't a BitKeeper clone), a lot of the flows we use with Git come directly from the flows we learned from BitKeeper.”[28]
  3. Very strong safeguards against corruption, either accidental or malicious[29][28]
  4. Very high performance

The first three criteria eliminated every pre-existing version control system except for Monotone, and the fourth excluded everything.[28] So, immediately after the 2.6.12-rc2 Linux kernel development release,[28] he set out to write his own.[28]

The development of Git began on April 3 2005.[30] The project was announced on April 6,[31] and became self-hosting as of April 7.[32] The first merge of multiple branches was done on April 18.[33] Torvalds achieved his performance goals; on April 29, the nascent Git was benchmarked recording patches to the Linux kernel tree at the rate of 6.7 per second.[34] On June 16, the kernel 2.6.12 release was managed by Git.[35]

While strongly influenced by BitKeeper, Torvalds deliberately attempted to avoid conventional approaches, leading to a very novel design.[36] He developed the system until it was usable by technical users, then turned over maintenance on July 26 2005 to Junio Hamano, a major contributor to the project.[37] Hamano was responsible for the 1.0 release on December 21 2005,[38] and remains the maintainer as of April 2008.

Implementation

Like BitKeeper, Git does not use a centralized server. However, Git's primitives are not inherently a SCM system. Torvalds explains,[39]

In many ways you can just see git as a filesystem — it's content-addressable, and it has a notion of versioning, but I really really designed it coming at the problem from the viewpoint of a filesystem person (hey, kernels is what I do), and I actually have absolutely zero interest in creating a traditional SCM system.

(Note that his opinion has changed since then.)[40]

Git has two data structures, a mutable index that caches information about the working directory and the next revision to be committed, and an immutable, append-only object database containing four types of objects:

  • A blob object is the content of a file. Blob objects have no names, timestamps, or other metadata.
  • A tree object is the equivalent of a directory: it contains a list of filenames, each with some type bits and the name of a blob or tree object that is that file, symbolic link, or directory's contents. This object describes a snapshot of the source tree.
  • A commit object links tree objects together into a history. It contains the name of a tree object (of the top-level source directory), a timestamp, a log message, and the names of zero or more parent commit objects.
  • A tag object is a container that contains reference to another object and can hold additional meta-data related to another object. Most commonly it is used to store a digital signature of a commit object corresponding to a particular release of the data being tracked by Git.

The object database can hold any kind of object. An intermediate layer, the index, serves as connection point between the object database and the working tree.

Each object is identified by a SHA-1 hash of its contents. Git computes the hash, and uses this value for the object's name. The object is put into a directory matching the first two characters of its hash. The rest of the hash is used as the file name for that object.

Git stores each revision of a file as a unique blob object. The relationships between the blobs can be found through examining the tree and commit objects. Newly added objects are stored in their entirety using zlib compression. This can consume a large amount of hard disk space quickly, so objects can be combined into packs, which use delta compression to save space, storing blobs as their changes relative to other blobs.

Portability

Git is targeted to run on Linux, but can be used on other Unix-like operating systems including BSD, Solaris and Darwin. Git is extremely fast on POSIX-based systems such as Linux.[41]

Git also runs on Windows. There are actually two options, the "official" one requiring the installation and use of Cygwin (a POSIX emulation).[42] Git is noticeably slower on Windows especially for commands written in shell scripts[43] primarily due to heavy cost of fork emulation performed by Cygwin. However, the recent rewriting of many shell commands in C have resulted in significant speed improvement on Windows.[44] Regardless, many people find Cygwin installation too large and invasive for typical Windows use.[45]

A native Microsoft Windows port (using MinGW) is approaching completion,[46] with versions of installers ready for testing (under the names "Git" and "msysgit", where "Git" is aimed for users)[47]. While still slower than the Linux version,[48], it is acceptably fast[49] and is reported to be usable in production, with only minor awkwardness.[50] In particular, some commands are not available from the GUIs, and must be invoked from the command line. Many issues have been resolved, such as handling of CRLF line endings and Windows' lack of POSIX compatibility.[51]

Many projects support both POSIX and Windows. Such projects typically avoid using an SCM system that poorly supports Windows, even if most developers use POSIX-based systems. Examples of projects that have publicly ruled out any use of Git, due to Git's poor support of Windows, include Mozilla[52] and Ruby.[53]

In some cases (particularly for anonymous remote access), support for Windows users can be provided via git-cvsserver (which emulates a CVS server, allowing use of Windows CVS clients). Other alternatives include:[54]

  • Eclipse IDE-based Git client, based on a pure Java implementation of Git's internals: egit
  • NetBeans IDE support for Git is under development.
  • A Windows Explorer extension (a project for a TortoiseCVS/TortoiseSVN-lookalike was started already) Git Cheetah
  • Git on MSYS is already used in production environments. It comes in an installer package, supports Git command-line usage (both Git-Bash and Windows Command-line) and Git-GUI/Gitk and also has basic Explorer integration [1]

"Libifying" the lowest-level Git operations would in theory enable re-implementation of the lowest-level components for Windows without rewriting the rest.[55]

Criticisms

Git has been criticized for its usability, documentation, and design.[56][57][58]

Some specific criticisms are:

  • Man pages reference other man pages in order to describe basic functionality as well as the meaning of command-line arguments.
  • Missing features that other more mature version control systems provide.

See also

References

  1. ^ Junio C Hamano (2008-05-28). "[ANNOUNCE] GIT 1.5.5.3". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ git.kernel.org - git/git.git/tree
  3. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-05-05). "Re: [ANNOUNCE] Git wiki". linux-kernel (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help) "Some historical background" on git's predecessors
  4. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-04-07). "Re: Kernel SCM saga". linux-kernel (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-04-08). "Re: Kernel SCM saga". linux-kernel (Mailing list). Retrieved 2008-02-20. {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-03-23). "Re: Errors GITtifying GCC and Binutils". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Projects that use Git for their source code management". Retrieved 2008-02-20.
  8. ^ OLPC wiki. "Project hosting". Retrieved 2008-02-20.
  9. ^ ""Rails is moving from SVN to Git"". Retrieved 2008-04-03.
  10. ^ "After controversy, Torvalds begins work on git". InfoWorld. 2005-04-19. ISSN 0199-6649. Retrieved 2008-02-20.
  11. ^ GitFaq: Why the 'git' name?
  12. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-10-19). "Re: VCS comparison table". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  13. ^ Stenback, Johnny (2006-11-30), "bzr/hg/git performance", Jst's Blog, retrieved 2008-02-20 {{citation}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help), benchmarking "git diff" against "bzr diff", and finding the former 100x faster in some cases.
  14. ^ Roland Dreier (2006-11-13). "Oh what a relief it is"., observing that "git log" is 100x faster than "svn log" because the latter has to contact a remote server.
  15. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-10-18). "Re: VCS comparison table". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help), describing Git's script-oriented design
  16. ^ iabervon (2005-12-22). "Git rocks!"., praising Git's scriptability
  17. ^ "Git User's Manual". 2007-08-05.
  18. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-04-10). "Re: more git updates." linux-kernel (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  19. ^ Bruno Haible (2007-02-11). "how to speed up "git log"?". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  20. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-03-01). "Re: impure renames / history tracking". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  21. ^ Junio C Hamano (2006-03-24). "Re: Errors GITtifying GCC and Binutils". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  22. ^ Junio C Hamano (2006-03-23). "Re: Errors GITtifying GCC and Binutils". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  23. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-11-28). "Re: git and bzr". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help), on using git-blame to show code moved between source files
  24. ^ Linus Torvalds (2007-07-18). "git-merge(1)".
  25. ^ Linus Torvalds (2007-07-18). "CrissCrossMerge".
  26. ^ Jonathan Corbet (2005-04-20), "How Tridge reverse engineered BitKeeper", Linux Weekly News
  27. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-04-07). "Re: Kernel SCM saga." linux-kernel (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  28. ^ a b c d e f Linus Torvalds (05-03). Google tech talk: Linus Torvalds on git. Event occurs at 02:30. Retrieved 2007-05-16. {{cite AV media}}: Check date values in: |date= and |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  29. ^ Linus Torvalds (2007-06-10). "Re: fatal: serious inflate inconsistency". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help) A brief description of Git's data integrity design goals.
  30. ^ Linus Torvalds (2007-02-27). "Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  31. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-04-06). "Kernel SCM saga." linux-kernel (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  32. ^ Linus Torvalds (2007-02-27). "Re: Trivia: When did git self-host?". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  33. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-04-17). "First ever real kernel git merge!". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  34. ^ Matt Mackall (2005-04-29). "Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  35. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-06-17). "Linux 2.6.12". git-commits-head (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  36. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-10-20). "Re: VCS comparison table". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help) A discussion of Git vs. BitKeeper
  37. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-07-27). "Meet the new maintainer..." git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  38. ^ Junio C Hamano (2005-12-21). "ANNOUNCE: GIT 1.0.0". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  39. ^ Linus Torvalds (2005-04-10). "Re: more git updates..." linux-kernel (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  40. ^ Linus Torvalds (2006-03-23). "Re: Errors GITtifying GCC and Binutils". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  41. ^ Stenback, Johnny (2006-11-30), "bzr/hg/git performance", Jst's Blog, retrieved 2008-02-20
  42. ^ Shawn Pearce (2006-10-24). "Re: VCS comparison table". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  43. ^ Johannes Schindelin (2007-01-01). "Re: [PATCH] Speedup recursive by flushing index only once for all". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  44. ^ Shawn O. Pearce (2007-09-18). "[PATCH 0/5] More builtin-fetch fixes". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  45. ^ Kevin Smith (2005-2005-06-28). "Re: git 0.99.7b doesn't build on Cygwin". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  46. ^ "Git on MSYS".
  47. ^ "WinGit".
  48. ^ Johannes Schindelin (2007-10-14). "Re: Switching from CVS to GIT". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help) A subjective comparison of Git under Windows and Linux on the same system.
  49. ^ Martin Langhoff (2007-10-15). "Re: Switching from CVS to GIT". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help) Experience running msysgit on Windows
  50. ^ Johannes Sixt (2007-10-15). "Re: Switching from CVS to GIT". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  51. ^ "POSIX fork()".
  52. ^ Reed, J. Paul (2006-11-27), "Version Control System Shootout Redux", preed's blah-blah-blahg, retrieved 2008-02-20
  53. ^ SASADA, Koichi (2006-11-07). "merge YARV into Ruby". ruby-core (Mailing list). Retrieved 2008-02-20. {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  54. ^ "WindowsInstall", Git Wiki, retrieved 2008-02-20
  55. ^ Johannes Schindelin (2006-03-02). "Re: windows problems summary". git (Mailing list). {{cite mailing list}}: Unknown parameter |mailinglist= ignored (|mailing-list= suggested) (help)
  56. ^ http://changelog.complete.org/posts/594-More-on-Git,-Mercurial,-and-Bzr.html "More on Git, Mercurial, and Bzr" by John Goerzen
  57. ^ http://thunk.org/tytso/blog/2007/03/24/git-and-hg/ "Git and hg" by Ted Tso
  58. ^ http://pcapriotti.wordpress.com/2007/10/08/some-thoughts-on-git/ "Some Thoughts On Git" by Paolo Capriotti.
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Source Control Management With Git
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Git&oldid=220037147"