Git and Scmbug integration

Git and Scmbug integration

[Kristis Makris]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1002 bytes --]

Hello,

I've been working on adding Git support in Scmbug, a system that
integrates software configuration management with bug-tracking. I've run
across what seem to be limitations in the Git hooks mechanism (at least
in version 1.5.1.3). In particular:


(1)

http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=991

There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.


(2)

http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=992

Git does not offer metadata describing a change on the commit trigger

The commit trigger seems to be "post-commit" but it supplies no arguments. The
"update" trigger supplies a lot of information but that's only triggered when
changes are published to a remote repository.


I could not find a way to extract this information from what I've read in:

http://www.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/hooks.html


Are there plans to implement these hooks ? Or, could someone help me
understand how to extract such information ? 


Thanks,
Kristis

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 188 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
scmbug-users mailing list
scmbug-users-G8y9j4K4DsPiwOUmbS1EgQ@public.gmane.org
http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[David Symonds]

On Nov 14, 2007 6:06 AM, Kristis Makris <kristis.makris@asu.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been working on adding Git support in Scmbug, a system that
> integrates software configuration management with bug-tracking. I've run
> across what seem to be limitations in the Git hooks mechanism (at least
> in version 1.5.1.3). In particular:
>
>
> (1)
>
> http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=991
>
> There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.

I believe the 'update' hook is run when the tag is pushed.

> (2)
>
> http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=992
>
> Git does not offer metadata describing a change on the commit trigger
>
> The commit trigger seems to be "post-commit" but it supplies no arguments. The
> "update" trigger supplies a lot of information but that's only triggered when
> changes are published to a remote repository.

Isn't this some kind of centralised bug-tracking system anyway? It
would be nice, I see, for the 'commit' hook to take, say, the commit
SHA-1 hash as a parameter.


Dave.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Kristis Makris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1771 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 10:00 +1100, David Symonds wrote:
> > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=991
> >
> > There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.
> 
> I believe the 'update' hook is run when the tag is pushed.

Even if that is true, there no hook that will trigger when a local tag
is applied.

> > (2)
> >
> > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=992
> >
> > Git does not offer metadata describing a change on the commit trigger
> >
> > The commit trigger seems to be "post-commit" but it supplies no arguments. The
> > "update" trigger supplies a lot of information but that's only triggered when
> > changes are published to a remote repository.
> 
> Isn't this some kind of centralised bug-tracking system anyway? It
> would be nice, I see, for the 'commit' hook to take, say, the commit
> SHA-1 hash as a parameter.

It isn't a centralized bug-tracking system necessarily. Because
different developers may used different, custom bug-tracking systems,
with custom hooks in their own local Git repositories that integrate
with only their own bug-tracking systems. And perhaps we can add the
support in the Scmbug Git frontend to integrate with a centralized
bug-tracker only on push operations if desired.

But we can't explore any of these issues, discussed in the thread below
too, unless we can extract what's needed from the hooks.

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/48981/focus=49011


I'd like the commit hook to provide enough information to be able to
tell which files were modified and their respective old/new version (or
perhaps their old/new SHA-1 hash). If the new SHA-1 hash can be used to
extract all that, that's ok with me. But right now there's nothing.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[David Symonds]

On Nov 14, 2007 10:55 AM, Kristis Makris <kristis.makris@asu.edu> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 10:00 +1100, David Symonds wrote:
> > > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=991
> > >
> > > There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.
> >
> > I believe the 'update' hook is run when the tag is pushed.
>
> Even if that is true, there no hook that will trigger when a local tag
> is applied.

Unannotated tags don't make a proper new object, only a ref. If you
stick to annotated tags, you'll get new objects added which, I think,
should trigger the post-commit hook.

> I'd like the commit hook to provide enough information to be able to
> tell which files were modified and their respective old/new version (or
> perhaps their old/new SHA-1 hash). If the new SHA-1 hash can be used to
> extract all that, that's ok with me. But right now there's nothing.

If you have the new commit's SHA-1, it's very simple to get the parent
commit's SHA-1 and do whatever you want. A complexity would be with
handling merges, where a commit has multiple parents. If you have a
commit SHA-1 hash, you can just "git diff --name-only <hash>^ <hash>"
to get a list of the files changed by <hash>.


Dave.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Kristis Makris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1713 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:02 +1100, David Symonds wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 10:55 AM, Kristis Makris <kristis.makris@asu.edu> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 10:00 +1100, David Symonds wrote:
> > > > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=991
> > > >
> > > > There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.
> > >
> > > I believe the 'update' hook is run when the tag is pushed.
> >
> > Even if that is true, there no hook that will trigger when a local tag
> > is applied.
> 
> Unannotated tags don't make a proper new object, only a ref. If you
> stick to annotated tags, you'll get new objects added which, I think,
> should trigger the post-commit hook.

I just tried again tagging with both:

$ git tag TAG_NAME

$ git tag -a TAG_NAME

and I don't get the post-commit hook executed.

Perhaps I missed something ?

> > I'd like the commit hook to provide enough information to be able to
> > tell which files were modified and their respective old/new version (or
> > perhaps their old/new SHA-1 hash). If the new SHA-1 hash can be used to
> > extract all that, that's ok with me. But right now there's nothing.
> 
> If you have the new commit's SHA-1, it's very simple to get the parent
> commit's SHA-1 and do whatever you want. A complexity would be with
> handling merges, where a commit has multiple parents. If you have a
> commit SHA-1 hash, you can just "git diff --name-only <hash>^ <hash>"
> to get a list of the files changed by <hash>.

This sounds great. If the post-commit hook could now provide the new
commit SHA-1 hash than that should be what I need.

Can the new commit SHA-1 hash be added as a parameter to the post-commit
hook please ?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[David Symonds]

On Nov 14, 2007 11:16 AM, Kristis Makris <kristis.makris@asu.edu> wrote:
> > Unannotated tags don't make a proper new object, only a ref. If you
> > stick to annotated tags, you'll get new objects added which, I think,
> > should trigger the post-commit hook.
>
> I just tried again tagging with both:
>
> $ git tag TAG_NAME
>
> $ git tag -a TAG_NAME
>
> and I don't get the post-commit hook executed.
>
> Perhaps I missed something ?

Okay, I don't know about that. Someone else might want to weigh in on this.

> > If you have the new commit's SHA-1, it's very simple to get the parent
> > commit's SHA-1 and do whatever you want. A complexity would be with
> > handling merges, where a commit has multiple parents. If you have a
> > commit SHA-1 hash, you can just "git diff --name-only <hash>^ <hash>"
> > to get a list of the files changed by <hash>.
>
> This sounds great. If the post-commit hook could now provide the new
> commit SHA-1 hash than that should be what I need.
>
> Can the new commit SHA-1 hash be added as a parameter to the post-commit
> hook please ?

Sure -- I've got a patch for it that I'll send shortly. It's using the
existing shell git-commit, so might be suitable for maint; I haven't
followed what's happened with the builtinification of git-commit.


Dave.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Junio C Hamano]

"David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:

> Sure -- I've got a patch for it that I'll send shortly. It's using the
> existing shell git-commit, so might be suitable for maint; I haven't
> followed what's happened with the builtinification of git-commit.

No, 'maint' won't get a feature enhancements.

Again, why isn't reading HEAD enough?

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[David Symonds]

On Nov 14, 2007 12:11 PM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:
> "David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Sure -- I've got a patch for it that I'll send shortly. It's using the
> > existing shell git-commit, so might be suitable for maint; I haven't
> > followed what's happened with the builtinification of git-commit.
>
> No, 'maint' won't get a feature enhancements.

Fair enough.

> Again, why isn't reading HEAD enough?

Reading HEAD would be fine. I guess it just seems a sensible and more
direct path to passing that information so that the hook has less to
do. It seems quite a simple thing that would be very helpful to hook
writers, with zero impact on everyone else.


Dave.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Junio C Hamano]

"David Symonds" <dsymonds@gmail.com> writes:

> Reading HEAD would be fine. I guess it just seems a sensible and more
> direct path to passing that information so that the hook has less to
> do. It seems quite a simple thing that would be very helpful to hook
> writers, with zero impact on everyone else.

You cannot just say "The hook did not get any parameter, nobody
would have cared, this does not regress."

Some anal people could have checked and checked "test $# = 0" at
the beginning to make sure their hooks do not get broken by
random interface changes on the git side.  Now their carefully
written script errors out as designed.  Also some people seem to
use different version of git on the same repository (e.g. NFS
mounted across hosts that run different versions of git).

I would 80% agree with you if the post-comit hook interface were
written in the way your patch does from day one.  Unfortunately
that is not the case.

The remaining 20%?  If we _were_ to change the hook interface, I
would also pass which branch the commit is added to, in addition
to what commit it is.

Both are easily obtainable by reading HEAD (you need to read
HEAD twice, though) but would be handy.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Junio C Hamano]

Kristis Makris <kristis.makris@asu.edu> writes:

> I just tried again tagging with both:
>
> $ git tag TAG_NAME
>
> $ git tag -a TAG_NAME
>
> and I don't get the post-commit hook executed.
>
> Perhaps I missed something ?

You didn't.  You did not create any commit.  No post-commit hook
runs.  There is no post-tag hook.

> Can the new commit SHA-1 hash be added as a parameter to the post-commit
> hook please ?

Looking at "git-rev-parse HEAD" in your hook should be enough.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Kristis Makris]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]

On Tue, 2007-11-13 at 17:09 -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Kristis Makris <kristis.makris-tTJs1oqo2yY@public.gmane.org> writes:
> 
> > I just tried again tagging with both:
> >
> > $ git tag TAG_NAME
> >
> > $ git tag -a TAG_NAME
> >
> > and I don't get the post-commit hook executed.
> >
> > Perhaps I missed something ?
> 
> You didn't.  You did not create any commit.  No post-commit hook
> runs.  There is no post-tag hook.
> 
> > Can the new commit SHA-1 hash be added as a parameter to the post-commit
> > hook please ?
> 
> Looking at "git-rev-parse HEAD" in your hook should be enough.

But ... which hook ? There is not post-tag hook!! 

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 188 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
scmbug-users mailing list
scmbug-users-G8y9j4K4DsPiwOUmbS1EgQ@public.gmane.org
http://lists.mkgnu.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scmbug-users

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Martin Langhoff]

On Nov 14, 2007 12:55 PM, Kristis Makris <kristis.makris@asu.edu> wrote:
> It isn't a centralized bug-tracking system necessarily. Because
> different developers may used different, custom bug-tracking systems,
> with custom hooks in their own local Git repositories that integrate
> with only their own bug-tracking systems. And perhaps we can add the
> support in the Scmbug Git frontend to integrate with a centralized
> bug-tracker only on push operations if desired.

I disagree somewhat here. In git, local commits are extremely
lightweight, and as a developer I don't want anything remarkable to
happen on those, even locally. It's pushing (which is actually
publishing!) that makes those commits relevant.

Even if I have a local or distributed bugtracker, any purely local
commit is "draft".

And this is regardless of centralised or distributed -- that's a
matter of policy around the repo I'm pushing to. The distinction that
matters is local vs published. Local commits get removed, rebased,
redone, discarded a whole lot.

> But we can't explore any of these issues, discussed in the thread below
> too, unless we can extract what's needed from the hooks.

I concur with the chorus that chants "HEAD"... try with `git show
HEAD` for starters...

cheers,


martin

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Alex Riesen]

Kristis Makris, Tue, Nov 13, 2007 20:06:32 +0100:
> http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=991
> 
> There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.

what for?

> http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=992
> 
> Git does not offer metadata describing a change on the commit trigger
> 
> The commit trigger seems to be "post-commit" but it supplies no arguments.

HEAD?

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[David Symonds]

On Nov 14, 2007 10:47 AM, Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> Kristis Makris, Tue, Nov 13, 2007 20:06:32 +0100:
> > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=991
> >
> > There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.
>
> what for?
>
> > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=992
> >
> > Git does not offer metadata describing a change on the commit trigger
> >
> > The commit trigger seems to be "post-commit" but it supplies no arguments.
>
> HEAD?

That wouldn't be particularly safe if you have a very quick succession
of commits (say, via a rebase, or automated operations) because HEAD
could be moved by the time the post-commit hook reads it.


Dave.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Alex Riesen]

David Symonds, Wed, Nov 14, 2007 00:53:43 +0100:
> On Nov 14, 2007 10:47 AM, Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=992
> > >
> > > Git does not offer metadata describing a change on the commit trigger
> > >
> > > The commit trigger seems to be "post-commit" but it supplies no arguments.
> >
> > HEAD?
> 
> That wouldn't be particularly safe if you have a very quick succession
> of commits (say, via a rebase, or automated operations) because HEAD
> could be moved by the time the post-commit hook reads it.

How's that? git-commit waits for its hooks.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[David Symonds]

On Nov 14, 2007 11:04 AM, Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Symonds, Wed, Nov 14, 2007 00:53:43 +0100:
> > On Nov 14, 2007 10:47 AM, Alex Riesen <raa.lkml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=992
> > > >
> > > > Git does not offer metadata describing a change on the commit trigger
> > > >
> > > > The commit trigger seems to be "post-commit" but it supplies no arguments.
> > >
> > > HEAD?
> >
> > That wouldn't be particularly safe if you have a very quick succession
> > of commits (say, via a rebase, or automated operations) because HEAD
> > could be moved by the time the post-commit hook reads it.
>
> How's that? git-commit waits for its hooks.

Okay, so if it triggers an asynchronous process it just needs to be
careful enough to pass whatever HEAD resolves to at the time. Cool.


Dave.

Re: Git and Scmbug integration

[Kristis Makris]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1090 bytes --]

On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 00:47 +0100, Alex Riesen wrote:
> > There's no hook that will trigger when a tag is applied.
> 
> what for?

To implement the synchronous verification checks provided by Scmbug:

http://www.mkgnu.net/?q=scmbug
http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-23-0/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS

In particular:

(1) Convention-based labeling

http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-23-0/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS-CONVENTION-BASED-LABELING

(2) The capability to freeze access to certain branches

http://bugzilla.mkgnu.net/show_bug.cgi?id=859

(3) Valid product-name verification

http://files.mkgnu.net/files/scmbug/SCMBUG_RELEASE_0-23-0/manual/html-single/manual.html#VERIFICATION-CHECKS-VALID-PRODUCT-NAME


There are a lot more checks, as you can see from the manual, that are
needed on a commit trigger, rather than just a tag trigger.

A lot of people find the integration provided by Scmbug useful and some
(Jakub, back me up here) have requested support for Git.



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]