On Saturday 29 November 2003 23:53, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 22:21, Brad Appleton wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 08:05:08AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > > If you want the SCM system to enforce code review and unit tests,
> > > you'll have to write a whole new "workflow" system on top of
> > > Subversion... it's not part of Subversion itself.
> >
> > Isn't what the OP is asking for simply the Aegis-like feature of
> > having a pre-commit "hook"? I perhaps tried to read too much into the
> > posting, but I got the impression he simply wanted a way to be able to
> > have his own pre-commit hook execute and be able to "do its thing" and
> > then return a success/failure result that the commit command would
> > then abort/proceed based upon its status.
>
> Sure... but how would you design a "pre-commit hook" to
>
> 1) verify that a unit-test was committed with the change
> 2) verify that the unit-test passes
>
> ?
> Because that's what Aegis does. It's not a trivial thing. Definitely
> beyond the scope of "core" Subversion at the moment.
Agreed.
> Beyond that, our repository hook system currently doesn't allow "long
> lived" transactions; if the pre-commit hook fails, I believe it deletes
> the transaction, and if it succeeds, I believe it commits the
> transaction. To make a transaction last indefinitely (so a manager can
> review it) requires writing some new code wrappers around the public
> filesystem API. Again, not a trivial thing.
I thought the reason for 'svnadmin lstxns/rmtxns' was because it is possible
to have a transaction lying around. If this is no longer the case, why do we
still have these commands?
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 30 12:41:53 2003