SethRobertson/index.md

## 0main.md

      
    Raw
  

              0main.md
            
          
    Commit Often, Fix it Later, Publish Once: Git Best Practices

Best Practices vary from environment to environment, and there is no
One True Answer, but still, this represents a consensus from #git and
in some cases helps you frame the discussion for the generation of
your very own best practices.
Index


Read about git
Commit early and often
Don't panic
Backups
Don't change published history
Choose a workflow
Dividing work into repositories
Useful commit messages
Integration with external tools
Sausage Making
Keeping up to date
Periodic maintenance
Experiment!
Useful Tools
Miscellaneous
Don't
Copyright
Thanks
Comments


## Read about git
Knowing where to look is half the battle.  I strongly urge everyone to
read (and support) the Pro Git book.  The other resources are highly
recommended by various people as well.

Pro Git
Git for Computer Scientists and a different/updated version
Git from the Bottom Up
Git for Web Designers
The Git Parable
Other resources
Git wiki


## Commit early and often
Git only takes full responsibility for your data when you commit.  If
you fail to commit and then do something poorly thought out, you can
run into trouble.  Additionally, having periodic checkpoints means
that you can understand how you broke something.
People resist this out of some sense that this is ugly, limits
git-bisection functionality, is confusing to observers, and might
lead to accusations of stupidity.  Well, I'm here to tell you that
resisting this is ignorant.  Commit Early And Often.  If, after you
are done, you want to pretend to the outside world that your work
sprung complete from your mind into the repository in utter perfection
with each concept fully thought out and divided into individual
concept-commits, well git supports that: see Sausage Making below.
However, don't let tomorrow's beauty stop you from performing
continuous commits today.
Personally, I commit early and often and then let the sausage making
be seen by all except in the most formal of circumstances.  Just look
at the history of this gist!

## Don't panic
As long as you have committed your work (or in many cases even added
it with git add) your work will not be lost for at least two weeks
unless you really work at it (run commands which manually purge it).
When attempting to find your lost commits, first make sure you will
not lose any current work.  You should commit or stash your current
work before performing any recovery efforts which might destroy your
current work and perhaps take backups of it (see Backups below).
After finding the commits you can reset, rebase, cherry-pick, merge,
or otherwise do what is necessary to get the commit history and work
tree you desire.
There are three places where "lost" changes can be hiding. They might be
in the reflog (git log -g), they might be in lost&found (git fsck --unreachable), or they might have been stashed (git stash list).


reflog
The reflog is where you should look first and by default.  It
shows you each commit which modified the git repository.  You can
use it to find the commit name (SHA-1) of the state of the
repository before (and after) you typed that command.  While you
are free to go through the reflog manually, you can also visualize
the repository using the following command (Look for dots without
children and without green labels):


gitk --all --date-order $(git log -g --pretty=%H)

* Lost and found

    Commits or other git data which are no longer reachable though any
    reference name (branch, tag, etc) are called "dangling" and may be
    found using fsck.  There are legitimate reasons why objects may be
    dangling through standard actions and normally over 99% of them are
    entirely uninteresting for this reason.

    * Dangling Commit

	These are the most likely candidates for finding lost data. A
	dangling commit is a commit no longer reachable by any branch or
	tag. This can happen due to resets and rebases and are
	normal. `git show SHA` will let you inspect them.

	The following command helps you visualize these dangling
	commits. Look for dots without children and without green labels.

	```shell
gitk --all --date-order $(git fsck | grep "dangling commit" | awk '{print $3;}')

* Dangling Blob

A dangling blob is a file which was not attached to a commit. This
is often caused by `git add`s which were superceded before commit
or merge conflicts. Inspect these files with

```shell

git show SHA

    * Dangling Tree

	A dangling tree is a directory tree of files that was not attached
	to a commit. These are rarely interesting, and often caused by
	merge conflicts. Inspect these files with `git ls-tree -r SHA`

* Stashes

    Finally, you may have stashed the data instead of committing it and
    then forgotten about it.  You can use the `git stash list` command
    or inspect them visually using:

    ```shell
gitk --all --date-order $(git stash list | awk -F: '{print $1};')


Misplaced
Another option is that your commit is not lost.  Perhaps the
commit was just made on a different branch from what you remember.
Using git log -Sfoo --all and gitk --all --date-order to try
and hunt for your commits on known branches.


Look elsewhere
Finally, you should check your backups, testing copies, ask the other
people who have a copy of the repo, and look in other repos.


## Backups
Everyone always recommends taking backups as best practice, and I am
going to do the same.  However, you already may have a highly
redundant distributed ad-hoc backup system in place!  This is because
essentially every clone is a backup.  In many cases, you may want to
use a clone for git experiments to perfect your method before trying
it for real (this is most useful for git filter-branch and similar
commands where your goal is to permanently destroy history without
recourse—if you mess it up you may not have recourse). Still, perhaps
you want a more formal system.
Traditional backups are still appropriate.  A normal tarball, cp,
rsync, zip, rar or similar backup copy will be a perfectly fine
backup.  As long as the underlying filesystem doesn't reorder git I/O
dramatically, there is not a long time delay between the scanning of
the directory and the retrieval of the files, the resulting copy of
.git should be consistent under almost all circumstances.  Of course,
if you have a backup from in the middle of a git operation, you might
need to do some recovery.  The data should all be present though.
When performing git experiments involving the working directory, a
copy instead of a clone may be more appropriate.
However, if you want a "pure git" solution, something like, which clones
everything in a directory of repos, this may be what you need:
cd /src/backupgit
ls -F . | grep / > /tmp/.gitmissing1
ssh -n git.example.com ls -F /src/git/. | grep / > /tmp/.gitmissing2
diff /tmp/.gitmissing1 /tmp/.gitmissing2 | egrep '^>' |
  while read x f; do
    git clone --bare --mirror ssh://git.example.com/src/git/$$f $$f
  done
rm -f /tmp/.gitmissing1 /tmp/.gitmissing2
for f in */.; do (cd $$f; echo $$f; git fetch); done

## Don't change published history
Once you git push (or in theory someone pulls from your repo, but
people who pull from a working repo often deserve what they get) your
changes to the authoritative upstream repository or otherwise make the
commits or tags publicly visible, you should ideally consider those
commits etched in diamond for all eternity.  If you later find out
that you messed up, make new commits which fix the problems (possibly
by revert, possibly by patching, etc).
Yes, of course git allows you to rewrite public history, but it is
problematic for everyone and and thus it is just not best practice to
do so.

## Choose a workflow
Some people have called git a tool to create a SCM workflow instead of
an SCM tool.  There is some truth to this.  I am not going to
specifically espouse one specific workflow as the best practice for
using git since it depends heavily on the size and type of project and
the skill of users, developers, and release engineers; however both
reflexive avoidance of branches due to stupidity of other SCM systems
and reflexive overuse of branches (since branches are actually easy
with git) is most likely ignorance.  Pick the style which best suits
your project and don't complain about user's tactical uses of private
branches.
Branch workflows
Answering the following questions helps you choose a branch workflow:

Where do important phases of development occur?
How can you identify (and backport) groups of related change?
What happens when emergency patches are required?

See the following references for more information on branch
workflows.


Pro Git branching models


Git-flow branching model
With the associated gitflow tool


Gitworkflows man page


A Git Workflow for Agile Teams


What git branching models actually work


Our New Git Branching Model


However, also understand that everyone already has an implicit
private branch due to their cloned repository: they can do work
locally do a git pull --rebase when they are done, perform final
testing, and then push their work out.  If you run into a
situation where you might need the benefits of a feature branch
before you are done, you can even retroactively commit&branch then
optionally reset your primary branch back to @{u}.  Once you push
you lose that ability.
Some people have been very successful with just master and
$RELEASE branches ($RELEASE branch for QA and polishing, master
for features, specific to each released version.)  Other people
have been very successful with many feature branches, integration
branches, QA, and release branches.  The faster the release cycle
and the more experimental the changes, the more branches will be
useful—continuous releases or large refactoring project seem to
suggest larger numbers of branches (note the number of branches is
the tail, not the dog: more branches will not make you release
faster).
Oh, and decide branch naming conventions.  Don't be afraid of / in
the branch name when appropriate.
Distributed workflows

Answering the following questions helps you choose a distributed
workflow:

Who is allowed to publish to the master repository?
What is the process between a developer finishing coding and the code being released to the end-user?
Are there distinct groups which work on distinct sections of the codebase and only integrate at epochs?  (Outsourcing)
Is everyone inside the same administrative domain?

See the following references for more information on distributed
workflows.

Pro Git distributed models
Gitworkflows man page

Cathedrals (traditional corporate development models) often want
to have (or to pretend to have) the one true centralized
repository.  Bazaars (linux, and the Github-promoted workflow)
often want to have many repositories with some method to notify a
higher authority that you have work to integrate (pull requests).
However, even if you go for, say, a traditional corporate
centralized development model, don't forbid self-organized teams
to create their own repositories for their own tactical reasons.
Even having to fill out a justification form is probably too
cumbersome.
Release workflow

Deciding on your release workflow (how to get the code to the
customer) is another important area to decide on.  I will not
touch on this much, but it can have an effect on how you use git.
Obviously branching and distributed workflows might affect this,
but less obviously, it may affect how and when you perform
tagging, and specifically the name of the tag you use.
At first glance, it is a no-brainer.  When you release something you
tag something, and I highly recommend this.  However, tags should be
treated as immutable once you push.  Well, that only makes sense, you
might think to yourself, but consider this: five minutes after
everyone has signed off on the 2.0 release, it has been tagged
Frobber_Release_2.0 and pushed, but before any customer has seen the
resulting product someone comes running in "OMFG, the foobar is broken
when you frobnoz the baz."  What do you do?  Do you skip release 2.0
and tag 2.0.1?  Do you do a take-back and go to every repo of every
developer and delete the 2.0 tag?
Two ideas for your consideration.  Instead of a release tag, use a
release branch (and then stop committing to that branch after release,
disabling write access to it in
gitolite or something).
Another idea, use an internal tag name which is not directly derived
from the version number which marketing wishes to declare to the
outside world.  Ideally use both which limits the disadvantages of
either technique, but less so than pure marketing-version tags.
Security model

You might ask why security is not a top level item and is near the
end of the workflow section.  Well that is because in an ideal
world your security should support your workflow not be an
impediment to it.
For instance, did you decide certain branches should only have
certain people being allowed to access it?  Did you decide that
certain repositories should only have certain people able to
access/write to them?
While git allows users to set up many different types of access
control, access methods, and the like; the best for most deployments
might be to set up a centralized git master repository with a
gitolite manager to provide
fine grained access control with ssh based authentication and
encryption.
Of course, security is more than access control.  It is also
assurance that what you release is what was written by the people
it should be written by, and what was tested.  Git provides you
this for free, but certain formal users may wish to use signed
tags.  Watch for signed pushes in a future version of git.

## Dividing work into repositories
Repositories sometimes get used to store things that they should not,
simply because they were there.  Try to avoid doing so.


One conceptual group per repository.
Does this mean one per product, program, library, class?  Only you
can say.  However, dividing stuff up later is annoying and leads
to rewriting public history or duplicative or missing history.
Dividing it up correctly beforehand is much better.


Read access control is at the repo level
If someone has access to a repository, they have access to the
entire repo, all branches, all history, everything.  If you need
to compartmentalize read access, separate the compartments into
different repositories.


Separate repositories for files which might be needed by multiple projects
This promotes sharing and code reuse, and is highly recommended.


Separate repositories for large binary files
Git doesn't handle large binary files ideally yet and large
repositories can be slow.  If you must commit them, separating
them out into their own repository can make things more efficient.


Separate repositories for planned continual history rewrites
You will note that I have already recommended against rewriting
public history.  Well, there are times when doing that just makes
sense.  One example might be a cache of pre-built binaries so that
most people don't need to rebuild them.  Yet older versions of
this cache (or at least older versions not at tag boundaries) may
be entirely useless and so you want to pretend they never happened
to save space.  You can rebase, filter, or squash these unwanted
commits away, but this is rewriting history and can cause problem.
So if you really must do so, isolate these files into a repository
so that at least everything else will not be affected.


Group concepts into a superproject
Once you have divided, now you need to conquer. You can assemble
multiple individual repositories into a superproject to group all
of the concepts together to create your unified work.
There are two main methods of doing this.


git-submodules
Git submodules is the native git approach which provides a
strong binding between the superproject repository and the
subproject repositories for every commit.  This leads to a
baroque and annoying process for updating the subproject.
However, if you do not control the subproject (solvable by
"forking") or like to perform blame-based history archeology
where you want to find out the absolute correspondence between
the different projects at every commit, it is very useful.


gitslave
gitslave is a useful tool to add a
subsidiary git repositories to a git superproject when you
control and develop on the subprojects at more or less the
same time as the superproject, and furthermore when you
typically want to tag, branch, push, pull, etc all
repositories at the same time.  There is no strict
correspondence between superproject and subproject
repositories except at tag boundaries (though if you need to
look back into history you can usually guess pretty well and
in any case this is rarely needed).


## Useful commit messages
Creating insightful and descriptive commit messages is one of the best
things you can do for others who use the repository.  It lets people
quickly understand changes without having to read code.  When doing
history archeology to answer some question, good commit messages
likewise become very important.
The normal git rule of using the first line to provide a short (72
character) summary of the change is also very good.  Looking at the
output of gitk or git log --oneline might help you understand why.
Also see A Note About Git Commit
Messages
for even more good ideas.
While this touches with the next topic of integration with external
tools, including bug/issue/request tracking numbers in your commit
messages provides a great deal of associated information to people
trying to understand what is going on.  You should also enforce
your standards on commit messages, when possible, through hooks.
See "Enforce standards in hooks" below.

## Integration with external tools

Web views

This is pretty standard stuff, but still a best practice.  Setting up
a tool like gitweb (or cgit or whatever) to allow URL reference to
commits (among other visualization interfaces it provides) gives
people a great way to refer to commits in email and conversations.  If
someone can click on a link vs having to fire up git and pull down the
latest changes and start up some visualization tool they are much more
likely to help you.

Bug tracking

Industry best practice suggests that you should have a bug tracking
system.  Hopefully you do.  Well, I'm hear to tell you that
integrating your bug tracking system with git makes the two systems
one thousand times more effective.  Specifically, come up with a
standard for tagging commits with bug numbers (eg. "Bug 1234: Adjust
the frobnoz down by .5") and then have a receive hook on the upstream
repo which automatically appends that commit information to the
ticket. If you really love your developers, develop syntax which lets
them close the ticket as part of the commit message (eg. "Bug 1235r:
Adjust the frobnoz up by .25").
The easier a system is for people to use, the more likely they will
use it.  Being able to see the context which caused the commit to
happen (or contrary-wise, being able to find the commit which solved a
problem) is incredibly useful.  When you send out your commit
announcements, make sure to hyperlink the bug tracker in the commit
message, and likewise in the tracker message, hyperlink to the web
view of the commit.
Notes: some commits can apply to multiple bugs.  Generate a standard
and code to handle this standard. Also, if you do hour tracking, you
may want a syntax to handle that.  (eg. "Bug 12346w/5: Bug 12347rw/3:
Adjust the frobnoz up by .3")

IRC/chat rooms

This is not a global best practice, but for certain sized
organizations may be very useful.  Specifically, to have a chat room
(IRC) to discuss issues and problems, and to have a robot in that chat
room to provide assistance.  When someone talks about Bug 1234,
provide a hyperlink to that ticket.  When someone pushes some commits
or adds a bug, it could announce same.  All sorts of things are
possible (RFC lookups, MAC vendor lookups, Eliza psychoanalysis, etc)
but there is a fine line between usefulness and overwhelming noise.
If you use github, github provides an "IRC" "Service Hooks" which lets
you get git announcements for free.  Said robot will not provide any
additional value added services you might want.  CIA
is another packaged commit announcement system and of course many IRC
robot frameworks can be found with simple web searches.

## Sausage Making
Some people like to hide the sausage making, or in other words pretend
to the outside world that their commits sprung full-formed in utter
perfection into their git repository.  Certain large public projects
demand this, but that is not necessarily a good reason for you to
demand this as well.
What is a good reason to hide the sausage making is if you feel you
may be cherry-picking commits a lot (though this too is often a sign
of bad workflow).  Having one or a small number of commits to pick is
much easier than having to find one commit here, one there, and half
of this other one.  The latter approach makes your problem much much
harder and typically will lead to merge conflicts when the doner
branch is finally merged in.
Another good reason is to ensure each commit compiles and/or passes
regression tests, and represents a different easily understood concept
(important for archeology).  The former allows git-bisect to chose any
commit and have a good chance of that commit doing something useful,
and the latter allows for easy change review, understanding, and
cherry-picking.
If you think about it, movies are made this way.  Scenes are shot out
of temporal order, multiple times, and different bits are picked from
this camera and that camera.  Without examining the analogy too
closely, this is similar to how different git commits might be viewed.
Once you have everything in the "can" (repository) you go back and in
post-production, you edit and splice everything together to form
individual cuts and scenes, sometimes perhaps even doing some digital
editing of the resulting product.
git rebase -i, git add -p, and git reset -p can fix commits up
in post-production by splitting different concepts, merging fixes to
older commits, etc. See also TopGit
and StGit.
Be sure you do all of this work before doing any non-squashed merges
(not rebases: merges) and before pushing.  Your work becomes much
more complex and/or impossible afterwards.

## Keeping up to date
This section has some overlap with workflow.  Exactly how and when you
update your branches and repositories is very much associated with the
desired workflow.  Also I will note that not everyone agrees with
these ideas (but they should!)

Pulling with --rebase

Whenever I pull, under most circumstances I git pull --rebase. This
is because I like to see a linear history (my commit came after all
commits that were pushed before it, instead of being developed in
parallel).  It makes history visualization much simpler and git bisect easier to see and understand.
A specific circumstance in which you should avoid using git pull --rebase is if you merged since your last push.  You might want to
git fetch; git rebase -p @{u} (and check to make sure the merge was
recreated properly) or do a normal merge in that circumstance.
Some people argue against this because the non-final commits may lose
whatever testing those non-final commits might have had since the
deltas would be applied to a new base.  This in turn might make
git-bisect's job harder since some commits might refer to broken
trees, but really this is only relevant to people who want to hide the
sausage making.  Of course to really hide the sausage making you
should still rebase and then test each intermediate commit to ensure
it compiles and passes your regression tests (you do have regression
tests, don't you?) so that a future bisector will have some strong
hope that the commit will be usable.  After all, that future bisector
might be you.
Other people argue against this (especially in highly decentralized
environments) because it explicitly records that the person who
performed the merge tested that the two histories were combined
properly (as opposed to the hidden history with implicit blame of
rebase).
You can make this the default with the "branch.<name>.rebase"
configuration option (and more practically, by the
"branch.autosetuprebase" configuration option).  See man
git-config.

Rebasing (when possible)

Whenever I have a private branch which I want to update, I use rebase
(for the same reasons as above).  History is clean and simple.
However, if you share this branch with other people, rebasing is
rewriting public history and should/must be avoided.  You may only
rebase commits that no-one else has seen (which is why git pull --rebase is safe).

Merging without speeding

git merge has the concept of fast-forwarding, or realizing that the
code you are trying to merge in is identical to the result of the code
after the merge.  Thus instead of doing work, creating new commits,
etc, git simply changes the branch pointers (fast forwards them) and
calls it good.
This is good when doing git pull but not so good when doing git merge with a non-@{u} (upstream) branch.  The reason this is not good
is because it loses information.  Specifically it loses track of which
branch is the first parent and which is not.  If you don't ever want
to look back into history, then it does not matter.  However, if you
might want to say "which branch was this commit originally committed
onto," if you use fast-forwarding that question is impossible to
answer since git will pick one branch or the other (the first parent
or second parent) as the one which both branches activities were
performed on and the other (original) parent's branch will be
anonymous.  There are typically worse things in the world, but you
lose information that is not recoverable in any other way by a
repository observer and in my book that is bad.  Use git merge --no-ff

## Periodic maintenance

Clean up your git repo every so often.
Check your stash for forgotten work (git stash list)


## Experiment!
When you have an idea or are not sure what something does, try it out!
Ideally try it out in a clone or copy so that recovery is trivial.
While you can normally completely recover from any git experiment
involving data which has been fully committed, perhaps you have not
committed yet or perhaps you are not sure whether something falls in
the category of "trying hard" to destroy history.

## Useful Tools
More than useful, use of these tools may help you form a best
practice!


gitolite
We already mentioned gitolite above, but it forms a great git
server intermediary for access control.


gitslave
We already mentioned gitslave above, but it forms a great
alternative to git-submodules when forming superprojects out of
repositories you control.


gerrit
To quote the website: Gerrit is a web based code review system,
facilitating online code reviews for projects using the Git
version control system.


## Miscellaneous
These are random best practices which are too minor or disconnected to
go in any other section.


Copy/move a file in a different commit from any changes to it
If you care about git properly displaying the fact that you moved
a file, you should copy or move the file in a different commit
from any changes you need to immediately make to that file.  This
is because git does not record git mv any different from a
delete and an add, and because git cp doesn't even exist.  Git's
output commands are the ones which interpret the data as a move or
copy.  See the -C and -M options to git log (and similar
commands).


Enforce standards in hooks
Having standards is a best practice and will improve the quality
of your commits, code-base, and probably enhance git-bisect and
archeology functionality, but what is the use of a standard if
people ignore them?  Checks could involve regression tests,
compilation tests, syntax/lint checkers, commit message analysis,
etc.  Of course, there are times when standards get in the way, so
provide some method to temporarily disable the checks when
appropriate.
Ideally you would do it on the client side in a pre-commit hook
(perhaps have a directory of standard hooks in your repo and ask
users to install them) but since users will often not install said
hooks, you also need to enforce the standards on the server side.
Doing so in a update hook allows you to reject commits which don't
follow the standards.  You can also chide the user for not using
the standard client-side hook to begin with.
See http://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/1/wiki/Puppet_Version_Control
for an example for a "Git Update Hook" and "Git Pre-Commit Hook" which
enforces certain standards.  Useful for ideas, anyway.


## Don't
In this list of things to not do, it is important to remember that
there are legitimate reasons to do all of these.  However, you should
not attempt any of these things without understanding the potential
negative effects of each and why they might be in a best practices
"Don't" list.
DO NOT


commit anything which can be regenerated from other things that were committed.
Things that can be regenerated include binaries, object files,
jars, .class, flex/yacc generated code, etc.  Really the only
place there is room for disagreement about this is if something
might take hours to regenerate (rendered images, eg, but see
"Dividing work into repositories" for more best practices about
this) or autoconf generated files (so people can configure and
compile without autotools installed).


commit configuration files
Specifically configuration files which might change from
environment to environment or for any reasons. See Information
about local versions of configuration
files


use git as a web deployment tool
Yes it can be done in a sufficiently simple/non-critical
environment with something like
http://toroid.org/ams/git-website-howto to help.  However, this
does not give you atomic updates, synchronized db updates, or
other accouterments of an industrial deployment system.


commit large binary files (when possible)
Large is currently relative to the amount of free RAM you have.
Remember that not everyone may be using the same memory
configuration you are.
Consider using Git annex or
Git media


create very large repositories (when possible)
Git can be slow in the face of large repositories. There are
git-config options which can help. pack.threads=1; pack.deltaCacheSize=1; pack.windowMemory=512m; core.packedGitWindowSize=16m; core.packedGitLimit=128m. Other
likely ones exist.


use reset (--hard || -merge) without committing/stashing
This can often overwrite the working directory without hope of
recourse.


use checkout in file mode
This will overwrite some (or potentially all with .) of the
working directory without hope of recourse.


use git clean without previously running with "-n" first
This will delete untracked files without hope of recourse.


prune the reflog
This is removing your safety belt.


expire "now"
This is cutting your safety belt.


use git as a generic filesystem backup tool
Yes people have done it successfully, but usually with lots of
scripts around it and with some toothing pains.  Git was not
written as a dedicated backup tool, and such tools do exist.


rewrite public history
See section about this topic.  It bears repeating, though.


change where a tag points
This is another way to rewrite public history.


use git-filter-branch
Still another way to rewrite public history.
However, if you are going to use git-filter-branch, make sure you
end your command with  --tag-name-filter cat -- --all unless you
are really really sure you know what you are doing.


use clone --shared or --reference
This can lead to problems for non-normal git actions, or if the
other repository is deleted/moved.  See git-clone manual
page.


use git-grafts
This is deprecated in favor of git-replace.


use git-replace
But don't use git-replace either.


## Copyright
Copyright ⓒ 2012 Seth Robertson
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.5)
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/
I would appreciate changes being sent back to me.

## Thanks
Thanks to the experts on #git, and my co-workers, for review,
feedback, and ideas.

## Comments
Comments and improvements welcome.
Add them below, or discuss with SethRobertson (and others) on #git