From: Sam Vilain <sam@vilain.net>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Sam Vilain <sam.vilain@catalyst.net.nz>, git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] post-update hook: update working copy
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2007 16:36:06 +1300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <472A9B26.2020608@vilain.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7vd4ut7948.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>
Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Now that git-stash is available, it is not so unsafe to push to a
>> non-bare repository, but care needs to be taken to preserve any dirty
>> working copy or index state. This hook script does that, using
>> git-stash.
>
> Honestly, I am reluctant to do things that _encourages_ pushing
> into a live tree.
I think a lot of people want this, and explaining why it doesn't work to
people is especially tiresome given that I know it can work, and the
caveats get smaller and smaller each time. I still think that the
operation can be made safe enough for general use.
> - Who guarantees that the reflog is enabled for the HEAD?
Ok, so I guess if that's the case then the old behaviour is OK.
However, this would not be required if implemented in receive-pack, as
the only thing I'm using it for is to get the revision that the current
index is based on.
The other option, which was writing two hooks, both of which need to be
enabled, seemed far too ugly!
> - Who guarantees that a human user is not actively editing the
> work tree files without saving? You would not see "dirty
> state", the editor would notice "the file was modified since
> you started editing it" and tell so to the user, but the user
> cannot recover from the situation without knowing to do the
> three-way merge between HEAD@{1}, HEAD and the index _anyway_.
There seems to be a lot of focus on this. However I don't think it is a
showstopper; in this instance that the person who has their life ruined
by the incoming push can blame the person who did it, blame themselves
for giving that stupid user access to their working directory, and then
accept that the tool is doing the best that it can.
>> + if git diff-index HEAD@{1} >/dev/null
>
> Are you missing "--cached" here?
Ah, yes, good catch.
>> + if [ "$wc_dirty" -ne 0 -o "$index_dirty" -ne 0 ]
>> + then
>> + new=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
>> + git-update-ref --no-deref HEAD HEAD@{1}
>> + echo "W:stashing dirty $desc - see git-stash(1)" >&2
>> + (cd $GIT_WORK_TREE
>> + git stash save "dirty $desc before update to $new")
>> + git-symbolic-ref HEAD "$ref"
>
> This part feels somewhat dangerous. What happens if we are
> interrupted in the middle of these commands?
Heh. What seems to happen is that the local command is aborted and the
remote one continues. Nonetheless I'll add a trap statement, but again
if implemented in receive-pack it could probably be more resilient.
>> + fi
>> +
>> + # eye candy - show the WC updates :)
>> + echo "Updating working copy" >&2
>> + (cd $GIT_WORK_TREE
>> + git-diff-index -R --name-status HEAD >&2
>> + git-reset --hard HEAD)
>> +}
>
> And I would have expected you would unstash the dirty state here.
> Are there any reason not to?
If git-stash could support stashing conflicted merges, I don't think so.
However, if the user is a git-shell user, then they won't be able to
resolve the conflict and they won't be able to re-push as the stash will
fail (a condition not visited by the above).
Sam.
changes as you suggested are below;
diff --git a/templates/hooks--post-update b/templates/hooks--post-update
index 352a432..b15c711 100755
--- a/templates/hooks--post-update
+++ b/templates/hooks--post-update
@@ -25,6 +25,11 @@ fi
update_wc() {
ref=$1
echo "Push to checked out branch $ref" >&2
+ if [ ! -f $GIT_DIR/logs/HEAD ]
+ then
+ echo "E:push to non-bare repository requires a HEAD reflog" >&2
+ exit 1
+ fi
if (cd $GIT_WORK_TREE; git-diff-files -q --exit-code >/dev/null)
then
wc_dirty=0
@@ -33,7 +38,7 @@ update_wc() {
wc_dirty=1
desc="working copy"
fi
- if git diff-index HEAD@{1} >/dev/null
+ if git diff-index --cached HEAD@{1} >/dev/null
then
index_dirty=0
else
@@ -49,11 +54,13 @@ update_wc() {
if [ "$wc_dirty" -ne 0 -o "$index_dirty" -ne 0 ]
then
new=$(git rev-parse HEAD)
- git-update-ref --no-deref HEAD HEAD@{1}
echo "W:stashing dirty $desc - see git-stash(1)" >&2
- (cd $GIT_WORK_TREE
- git stash save "dirty $desc before update to $new")
+ ( trap 'echo trapped $$; git symbolic-ref HEAD "'"$ref"'"' 2 3 13 15 ERR EXIT
+ git-update-ref --no-deref HEAD HEAD@{1}
+ cd $GIT_WORK_TREE
+ git stash save "dirty $desc before update to $new";
git-symbolic-ref HEAD "$ref"
+ )
fi
# eye candy - show the WC updates :)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-02 3:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-02 0:45 [PATCH] post-update hook: update working copy Sam Vilain
2007-11-02 1:02 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-02 3:36 ` Sam Vilain [this message]
2007-11-02 8:49 ` Junio C Hamano
2007-11-02 10:34 ` Andreas Ericsson
2007-11-02 17:28 ` Steven Grimm
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=472A9B26.2020608@vilain.net \
--to=sam@vilain.net \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=sam.vilain@catalyst.net.nz \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.