On Tue, 2010-08-10, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 08/10/2010 01:10 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > On 08/10/2010 12:15 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> >> On Tue, 2010-08-10 at 17:12 +0100, Bolstridge, Andrew wrote:
> >>>> Summary...
> >>>> There are two issues here...
> >>>> 1. The repo admin wants to enforce what is commited to their repo.
> >>> This
> >>>> exists with scripts but common request can be made inherient repo
> >>> settings
> >>>> (probably need to be path based).
> >>> The issue with pre-commit hooks is that they are run after all data is
> >>> transferred - so if I commit loads of data, and accidentally leave the
> >>> banned buildlog.htm file in... I'll find out about it after half an
> >>> hour's commit.. and have to repeat the process.
> >> No - there are two different hooks, for precisely this reason.
> >> pre-commit runs before all the file contents are transferred, and
> >> start-commit after all the file contents are transferred.
> > Er... no.
> > 'start-commit' runs before any files are transferred. It can't be used to
> > fail a commit based on any information that comes from the commit's tree
> > delta content payload.
> > 'pre-commit' runs just before the commit transaction is promoted into a
> > revision, and can be used to block commits based on the content payload.
> > But only after the whole payload is transmitted to the server.
> In other words, I think you were essentially correct about the two-hook
> system, Julian -- you just had the hooks switched. But regardless, the
Thanks for correcting me.
> two-hook system still fails Andrew's particular enforcement requirements
> (which are quite common).
Oh? All I know about Andrew's particular requirements related to this
query is what's quoted above - "If I ... accidentally leave the banned
buildlog.htm file in ..." - which sounded vaguely like a requirement for
a path-based rule. Maybe I missed something.
Received on 2010-08-10 19:25:58 CEST