Errata

Although I can understand that they may be addressing separate developers, I find there is a gender disconnect between the first paragraph and the second. In the first you say: "...it is easy to add a new developer to a project simply by letting _her_ clone...". Then, immediately in the next sentence/paragraph you say: "Let's introduce Bob...".

For continuity I think one or the other of these genders should be switched.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Agreed. Change "her" to "him:

...a new developer to a project simply by letting him clone...

I believe an "a" is missing in the second sentence.

It reads (in part): "a repository and its clone can diverge into alternate histories as result of separate actions"

Perhaps it should be: "...alternate histories as _a_ result of..."

Note from the Author or Editor:
Yeah, so, none of my original sentence, the copy editor's version, nor O'Reilly's printed version of this sentence agree. OK. Time to fix it! Perhaps the version as suggested is best:

... a repository and its clone can diverge into alternate histories as a result of separate actions.

At the end of the following sentence, the ID is wrong:

"Both the 'master' branch and a tag named 'v1.0' point to the commit with ID 8675309."

The correct commit ID is 1492.

(The refer ID 8675309 in the sentence is in fact the tree ID, not the commit ID).

Note from the Author or Editor:
*sigh* Yes, it should read '... point to the commit with ID 1492.'

Two sentences seem to contradict themselves. "At any time during the staging process, the command git diff --cached shows...those changes already staged in the index that will be present in your next commit. When you're finished, git commit captures all changes in your working directory into a new commit." I believe "working directory" should actually be "index".

Note from the Author or Editor:
I'll buy that. So that last sentence should read:

When you're finished, git commit captures all changes in your index into a new commit.

On pg. 32, in the box titled "Globally Unique Identifiers", the statement is
made "Thus, the SHA1 hash ID of a file is a globally unique identifier."
This is not exactly true, for if it were it would violate the pigeon hole
principal. Multiple files could hash to the same value (and we could just
pass around the hash value and be done with it), but the mathematically odds
of this are very slim, so the statement should read: "Thus, the SHA1 hash ID
of a file is an *effective* globally unique identifier.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Sure.

Thus, the SHA1 hash ID of a file is an effective globally unique identifier.

Commit "B" (revision master~2) is mistakenly marked as "D" in figure 13-1.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct. The leftmost circle of Figure 13-1 should be "B".

Last sentence reads "Output produced by remote hooks still shown to the user..." This should be "Output produced by remote hooks is still shown..."

Note from the Author or Editor:
Confirmed. Rewrite the sentence as suggested:

Output produced by remote hooks is still shown...

I think "Where's the diff line about _world_, showing that it was added to the second version, and _worlds_, showing that it was removed in the first version?" should be "Where's the diff line about _world_, showing that it was added to the **first** version, and _worlds_, showing that it was removed in the **first** version?" The merge conflict was resolved in favor of the second version, so it doesn't make sense that there would be diffs with both versions.

Note from the Author or Editor:
So, yeah, this is confusing. I had to draw a 4-part diagram with
circles and arrows on the back explaining how each was used to come
up with this cryptic sentence. So let's rewrite it being a bit more
explicit. Let's rewrite that whole first paragraph on page 130 as:

Wait! Something strange happened there. Where does it show where
the _world_ line was added to the base version? Where does it
show that the _worlds_ line was removed from the _HEAD_ version?
As you have resolved the conflict in favor of the MERGE_HEAD
version, Git deliberately omits the diff because it thinks you
probably don't care about that section anymore.

The top branch in Figure 10-7 should be "master" not "dev".

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct.

The top branch in Figure 10-7 should be "master" not "dev".

(wrong)
$ cat index.html
...
<html>

(correct)
$ cat index.html
...
</html> <- should be a closing tag

Note from the Author or Editor:
*sigh* True.

To make the HTML valid, it should be a closing </html> tag.
The example in the middle of page 22 should have its penultimate line updated:

...
My website is alive!
</body>
</html>

Then, to be consistent and correct later, the example at the top of
page 24 should have its "index" and final lines changed as well:

...
diff --git a/index.html b/index.html
index 34217e9..8638631 100644
--- a/index.html
+++ b/index.html
@@ -1 +1,5 @@
+<html>
+<body>
My website is alive!
+</body>
+</html>

Note that the final </html> tag has been updated as well as the
second partial SHA1 number on the "index" line.

The first example of a SSH URL contains three slashes which should be only two.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Confirmed. Only two slashes, not three.

"work when tracking when" should be "work tracking when"

Note from the Author or Editor:
Interesting. As I wrote the sentence originally, I said:

...does a lot of work to track when a file is renamed...

The copy editor suggested the change to its current form:

...does a lot of work when tracking when a file is renamed...

And now the suggestion is:

...does a lot of work tracking when a file is renamed...

I'm going to vote for "remove extra words", so let's simplify it:

...does a lot of work when a file is renamed...

Other opinions? :-)

It would be best if .gitignore was not slip across two lines.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Confirmed. This looks like a bad word-break. Not sure why, but it would be better left unbroken.

$ echo X >> file ; git commit -mZ file

should be

$ echo X >> file ; git commit -mX file

i.e., change -mZ to -mX

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct!

That first echo line in the example should be:

$ echo X >> file ; git commit -mX file

The sentence "Did you for get to use{git add}?" should be formatted as "Did you forget to use git add?"

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct. Formatting problem. Braces should be removed, and "git add" should be in a fixed-width font.

The fourth sentence reads "This situation can benefit from large-scale sharing of many the object store by many repositories..." it should be changed to "This situation can benefit from larges-scale sharing of the object store by many repositories..."

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct.

In the last paragraph of the section "Publishing Repositories", on page 208, delete the word "many" to obtain the correct sentence:

This situation can benefit from large-scale sharing of the
object store by many repositories...

There should be a period between the words "push But" in the middle of the first sentence.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct. Simple period addition needed as indicated:

...see the push. But a subsequent...

the new git diff output looks [like] this:

Note from the Author or Editor:
The copy editor recommended that sentence be rewritten from:

The new <command>git diff</command> output looks this:
as:
Then the new <command>git diff</command> output is

Though the paragraph states that in the relevant diagrams development branches "are distinguished by a lightly shaded background, and tracking branches by darker shaded background", in fact the opposite is correct.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Um, wow. Yeah. So, that second, whole paragraph on a page 198 needs
to have "lightly" and "darker" switched in both places where they are
mentioned. Let's rewrite that whole paragraph like this:

In all of these diagrams, development branches in both the original
repository and the derived clone repository, are distinguished by
a dark shaded background and tracking branches by a lighter shaded
background.
It is important to understand that both the development and
tracking branches are private and local to their respective
repositories.
In terms of Git's implementation, however, the dark shaded branch
labels belong to the <filename>refs/heads/</filename> namespace while
the lighter ones belong to <filename>refs/remotes/</filename>.

Typo in second sentence, should read: "It is a tracking branch within the origin remote."

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct. Typo in second sentence. It should read:

It is a tracking branch within the origin remote.

Because file1 is now staged, the working directory and the index are
synchronized and should now show any differences.
... should read ...
Because file1 is now staged, the working directory and the index are
synchronized and should [not] show any differences.

Note from the Author or Editor:
Correct.

This is the quintessential typo. Fix as suggested:

Because file1 is now staged, the working directory and the index
are synchronized and should not show any differences.