All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
To: Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de>
Cc: Heiko Voigt <hvoigt@hvoigt.net>,
	Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>,
	Git Mailing List <git@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Publishing "filtered branch repositories" - workflow / recommendations?
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:16:24 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <xmqqa9g7t1vb.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <52A8E124.4000002@web.de> (Jens Lehmann's message of "Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:03:16 +0100")

Jens Lehmann <Jens.Lehmann@web.de> writes:

>> I think this is closely related to Martin's list of wishes we
>> earlier saw in the thread: remind the user to push necessary
>> submodule tip before the top-level commit that needs that commit in
>> the submodule is pushed out.  Giving projects a way to implement
>> such a policy decision would be good, and having a default policy,
>> if we can find one that would be reasonable for any submodule users,
>> would be even better.  Would adding a generic pre-push hook at the
>> top-level sufficient for that kind of thing, I have to wonder.
>
> That could call "git push --dry-run --recurse-submodules=check" to
> deny the push if the submodule commit isn't on a remote branch.
> that would only work for a single hardcoded remote, as the remote
> itself does not seem to be passed to the pre-push hook.
>
> So me thinks adding a configuration option for the --recurse-submodule
> option of push is the best way to achieve that. This could be set to
> "check" ...

Yes, that uses only a single hard-coded decision, and making the
branch name or remote name customizable is not enough, as you are
still hardcoding "if ... isn't on" part. It is not far-fetched to
imagine a project wants to add more restrictions to what commit in
the submodule history can be bound to a tree of a published commit
in the top-level project (e.g. "must be a tagged release point",
"must be older at least by more than two weeks", "must be signed by
one of these developers' keys", etc.).

So I am not yet convinced that a simple "option" that supplies a few
parameters to a single hard-coded policy is sufficient in the long
run.

  reply	other threads:[~2013-12-11 23:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-04 23:01 Publishing "filtered branch repositories" - workflow / recommendations? Martin Langhoff
2013-12-05 18:43 ` Martin Langhoff
2013-12-05 19:18 ` Jens Lehmann
2013-12-05 19:27   ` Martin Langhoff
2013-12-05 19:54     ` Jens Lehmann
2013-12-05 22:06       ` Martin Langhoff
2013-12-06  8:48         ` Jens Lehmann
2013-12-06 19:40           ` Martin Langhoff
2013-12-09 22:59             ` Heiko Voigt
2013-12-09 23:56               ` Junio C Hamano
2013-12-11 22:03                 ` Jens Lehmann
2013-12-11 23:16                   ` Junio C Hamano [this message]
2013-12-12 13:39                     ` Heiko Voigt

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=xmqqa9g7t1vb.fsf@gitster.dls.corp.google.com \
    --to=gitster@pobox.com \
    --cc=Jens.Lehmann@web.de \
    --cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=hvoigt@hvoigt.net \
    --cc=martin.langhoff@gmail.com \
    /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.