Git Source Code Mirror - This is a publish-only repository and all pull requests are ignored. Please follow Documentation/SubmittingPatches procedure for any of your improvements.
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.

109 lines
3.5 KiB

In general, URLs contain information about the transport protocol, the
address of the remote server, and the path to the repository.
Depending on the transport protocol, some of this information may be
Git supports ssh, git, http, and https protocols (in addition, ftp,
transport: drop support for git-over-rsync The git-over-rsync protocol is inefficient and broken, and has been for a long time. It transfers way more objects than it needs (grabbing all of the remote's "objects/", regardless of which objects we need). It does its own ad-hoc parsing of loose and packed refs from the remote, but doesn't properly override packed refs with loose ones, leading to garbage results (e.g., expecting the other side to have an object pointed to by a stale packed-refs entry, or complaining that the other side has two copies of the refs[1]). This latter breakage means that nobody could have successfully pulled from a moderately active repository since cd547b4 (fetch/push: readd rsync support, 2007-10-01). We never made an official deprecation notice in the release notes for git's rsync protocol, but the tutorial has marked it as such since 914328a (Update tutorial., 2005-08-30). And on the mailing list as far back as Oct 2005, we can find Junio mentioning it as having "been deprecated for quite some time."[2,3,4]. So it was old news then; cogito had deprecated the transport in July of 2005[5] (though it did come back briefly when Linus broke git-http-pull!). Of course some people professed their love of rsync through 2006, but Linus clarified in his usual gentle manner[6]: > Thanks! This is why I still use rsync, even though > everybody and their mother tells me "Linus says rsync is > deprecated." No. You're using rsync because you're actively doing something _wrong_. The deprecation sentiment was reinforced in 2008, with a mention that cloning via rsync is broken (with no fix)[7]. Even the commit porting rsync over to C from shell (cd547b4) lists it as deprecated! So between the 10 years of informal warnings, and the fact that it has been severely broken since 2007, it's probably safe to simply remove it without further deprecation warnings. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Signed-off-by: Jeff King <> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <>
7 years ago
and ftps can be used for fetching, but this is inefficient and
deprecated; do not use it).
The native transport (i.e. git:// URL) does no authentication and
should be used with caution on unsecured networks.
The following syntaxes may be used with them:
- ssh://{startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz{startsb}:port{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
- git://host.xz{startsb}:port{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
- http{startsb}s{endsb}://host.xz{startsb}:port{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
- ftp{startsb}s{endsb}://host.xz{startsb}:port{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
An alternative scp-like syntax may also be used with the ssh protocol:
- {startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz:path/to/repo.git/
This syntax is only recognized if there are no slashes before the
first colon. This helps differentiate a local path that contains a
colon. For example the local path `foo:bar` could be specified as an
absolute path or `./foo:bar` to avoid being misinterpreted as an ssh
The ssh and git protocols additionally support ~username expansion:
- ssh://{startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz{startsb}:port{endsb}/~{startsb}user{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
- git://host.xz{startsb}:port{endsb}/~{startsb}user{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
- {startsb}user@{endsb}host.xz:/~{startsb}user{endsb}/path/to/repo.git/
For local repositories, also supported by Git natively, the following
syntaxes may be used:
- /path/to/repo.git/
- \file:///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 <>
16 years ago
These two syntaxes are mostly equivalent, except when cloning, when
the former implies --local option. See linkgit:git-clone[1] for
These two syntaxes are mostly equivalent, except the former implies
--local option.
'git clone', 'git fetch' and 'git pull', but not 'git push', will also
accept a suitable bundle file. See linkgit:git-bundle[1].
When Git doesn't know how to handle a certain transport protocol, it
attempts to use the 'remote-<transport>' remote helper, if one
exists. To explicitly request a remote helper, the following syntax
may be used:
- <transport>::<address>
where <address> may be a path, a server and path, or an arbitrary
URL-like string recognized by the specific remote helper being
invoked. See linkgit:gitremote-helpers[7] for details.
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://"]
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://".
If you want to rewrite URLs for push only, you can create a
configuration section of the form:
[url "<actual url base>"]
pushInsteadOf = <other url base>
For example, with this:
[url "ssh://"]
pushInsteadOf = git://
a URL like "git://" will be rewritten to
"ssh://" for pushes, but pulls will still
use the original URL.