Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Garbageyard]

We have a pre-receive hook that checks for JIRA ID whenever someone pushes
code to Git server. I'm trying to avoid this check when someone is applying
a tag. Here's the link for the script: http://pastebin.com/VnMQp5ar

This is the link for output: http://pastebin.com/tBGmYaZF

Problem is that if i run the following command, the output that i get on
command line is 0

git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67adc04078786164939989a5112d98 2>&1 |
grep -o fatal | wc -w

So i'm wondering why it's not entering the IF block (as confirmed in the
output link)

I agree this is a bad implementation (and i will change it soon) for
checking tags and can be easily done by just checking whether $refname
starts with refs/tags/ but i'll really appreciate if someone could tell me
the mistake i'm committing. I've spent few hours banging my head on this.



--
View this message in context: http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764.html
Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Junio C Hamano]

Garbageyard <varuag.chhabra@gmail.com> writes:

> We have a pre-receive hook that checks for JIRA ID whenever someone pushes
> code to Git server. I'm trying to avoid this check when someone is applying
> a tag. Here's the link for the script: http://pastebin.com/VnMQp5ar
>
> This is the link for output: http://pastebin.com/tBGmYaZF
>
> Problem is that if i run the following command, the output that i get on
> command line is 0
>
> git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67adc04078786164939989a5112d98 2>&1 |
> grep -o fatal | wc -w

I am not sure what you are trying to do in the first place.

  : gitster x; git init garbage
  Initialized empty Git repository in /var/tmp/x/garbage/.git/
  : gitster x; cd garbage
  : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m initial
  [master (root-commit) b18cac2] initial
  : gitster garbage/master; git tag v0.0 ;# lightweight
  : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m second
  [master d1de78e] second
  : gitster garbage/master; git tag -a 'v0.1' v0.1
  fatal: Failed to resolve 'v0.1' as a valid ref.
  : gitster garbage/master; git tag -a -m 'v0.1' v0.1
  : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m third
  [master d1f1360] third
  : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD ;# third
  fatal: no tag exactly matches 'd1f1360b46dfde8c6f341e48ce45d761ed37e357'
  : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^ ;# second
  v0.1
  : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^^ ;# first
  fatal: no tag exactly matches 'b18cac237055d9518f9f92bb4c0a4dac825dce17'
  : gitster garbage/master; exit

I am feeding three _commits_, not tags.  But one of them (i.e. the
one that happens to have an annotated tag) yields the "exact match"
tagname, as designed and expected.

But is it really what you want to do to skip such a commit?  Why?

I also see a questionable thing in the earlier part of your script:

   while read old_sha1 new_sha1 refname ; do
           echo "stdin: [$old_sha1] [$new_sha1] [$refname]"
           if [ "$old_sha1" == "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000" ] ; then
               commits=$new_sha1
           else
               commits=`git rev-list $old_sha1..$new_sha1`
           fi

           for commit in $commits
           do
		...

When somebody pushes to an existing branch, you list all the new
commits that came in (i.e. 'git rev-list' is bounded by $old_sha1 at
the bottom).  But when somebody pushes to a new branch, you only
include the tip to the list.

And you check everything on that list.  Why?  If I push three-commit
series to a new branch, wouldn't you want to validate all three of
them, just like you validate my push of a three-commit enhancement
to an existing branch?

	while read old new name
        do
		case "$name" in refs/heads/tags/*) continue ;; esac
		if test "$old" = 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000
		then
			git rev-list $old
		else
                	git rev-list $old..$new
		fi
	done |
	while read commit
        do
        	Do a check on $commit
	done

or something instead?

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Jacob Keller]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Garbageyard <varuag.chhabra@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a pre-receive hook that checks for JIRA ID whenever someone pushes
> code to Git server. I'm trying to avoid this check when someone is applying
> a tag. Here's the link for the script: http://pastebin.com/VnMQp5ar
>
> This is the link for output: http://pastebin.com/tBGmYaZF
>
> Problem is that if i run the following command, the output that i get on
> command line is 0
>
> git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67adc04078786164939989a5112d98 2>&1 |
> grep -o fatal | wc -w
>
> So i'm wondering why it's not entering the IF block (as confirmed in the
> output link)
>

Probably due to environment variables set by the git hook. But.. this
is definitely not at *ALL* what you want to do. Junio has a good
explanation below. This doesn't make even any sense at all to me...

> I agree this is a bad implementation (and i will change it soon) for
> checking tags and can be easily done by just checking whether $refname
> starts with refs/tags/ but i'll really appreciate if someone could tell me
> the mistake i'm committing. I've spent few hours banging my head on this.
>
>
>

Ok, so the issue I believe is this:

you're running git describe on the local side. But the pre-receive
hook hasn't actually accepted the ref yet so git-describe on the
server will fail.

This is why you should just check refs/tags/* as regular pre-receive
hook examples do.

Regards,
Jake

> --
> View this message in context: http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764.html
> Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Gaurav Chhabra]

Thanks for the comments Junio/Jacob! Actually, the script was written
by someone before i came and the tag check was also done by my
colleague recently. I was also trying to implement the tag check
(using refs/tags which i did saw in few links online) but since my
colleague implemented this 'git describe' thing first and it looked
like it was working for few cases that we tried, so we left it as is.
Frankly, since everything 'seemed' to be working well so far, i never
really quite looked into it. Now i guess, it's time to correct it.


@Junio: From the example you gave, i could conclude the following:

1) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m third
  [master d1f1360] third
  : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD ;# third
  fatal: no tag exactly matches 'd1f1360b46dfde8c6f341e48ce45d761ed37e357'

> Since after # third commit, no tag was applied to HEAD, so --exact-match resulted in fatal error

2)  : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m second
[master d1de78e] second
: gitster garbage/master; git tag -a -m 'v0.1' v0.1
: gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^ ;# second
    v0.1
> Since annotated tag was applied after # second commit, so --exact-match did referenced the commit as expected.

3) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m initial
  [master (root-commit) b18cac2] initial
  : gitster garbage/master; git tag v0.0 ;# lightweight
  : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^^ ;# first
  fatal: no tag exactly matches 'b18cac237055d9518f9f92bb4c0a4dac825dce17'

> In this case, it's a lightweight tag and i read today that by default, git describe only shows annotated tags (without --all or --tags). I think it's because of the missing option (--all or --tags) that it resulted in fatal error in this case.

Please correct me if i misunderstood any/all of the above cases.

My queries:
A) When you mentioned: "I am feeding three _commits_, not tags.", i
didn't really get what you're trying to highlight. Is it that the code
i shared 'incorrectly' uses 'git describe' command because it's
passing the commit ($new_sha1) associated with pushing of the tag
_instead_ of passing the commit id that the tag actually points to?

B) Coming to the earlier part of the code that you questioned. Thanks
for that. As i mentioned above, some guy had written it long time back
(few years). And again, since this never caused any issue, we never
looked into it. I did read a little about rev-list today but i think
i'll have to try it out on my machine to understand it well. Will read
more and then implement the check but yes, i do get an idea what
you've tried to question. Basically, for new branch or new
development, we are not really doing complete checks. Correct?

You've also mentioned that "And you check everything on that list.  Why?"
> Was this comment for the portion where the code is validating commits (git rev-list $old_sha1..$new_sha1) for existing branch? If yes, then i didn't really get your concern. Can you kindly elaborate a bit?

And thanks for sharing the modified version! :)


@Jacob: You're right. If i understood correctly what Junio explained,
then what the code is doing really shouldn't make any sense at all. :)

By the way, you mentioned, "Ok, so the issue I believe is this: you're
running git describe on the local side. But the pre-receive hook
hasn't actually accepted the ref yet so git-describe on the server
will fail."
> When i push a tag, then as per the output i shared, the commit id associated with my tag push is ac28ca721e67a. So if i do a "git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67a", then

1) First of all, it shouldn't make any sense because as "git describe"
should accept _actual_ commit id and not the commit id generated for
tag push, isn't it?

2) If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
ac28ca721e67a"?


@Junio/Jacob: I think i've asked quite a number of questions above but
i will really appreciate if you could spare some time to clear these
doubts. I'm definitely going to change this junk code but i would like
to be sure that i've understood your explanations well.


Thanks!

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Jacob Keller <jacob.keller@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Garbageyard <varuag.chhabra@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We have a pre-receive hook that checks for JIRA ID whenever someone pushes
>> code to Git server. I'm trying to avoid this check when someone is applying
>> a tag. Here's the link for the script: http://pastebin.com/VnMQp5ar
>>
>> This is the link for output: http://pastebin.com/tBGmYaZF
>>
>> Problem is that if i run the following command, the output that i get on
>> command line is 0
>>
>> git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67adc04078786164939989a5112d98 2>&1 |
>> grep -o fatal | wc -w
>>
>> So i'm wondering why it's not entering the IF block (as confirmed in the
>> output link)
>>
>
> Probably due to environment variables set by the git hook. But.. this
> is definitely not at *ALL* what you want to do. Junio has a good
> explanation below. This doesn't make even any sense at all to me...
>
>> I agree this is a bad implementation (and i will change it soon) for
>> checking tags and can be easily done by just checking whether $refname
>> starts with refs/tags/ but i'll really appreciate if someone could tell me
>> the mistake i'm committing. I've spent few hours banging my head on this.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Ok, so the issue I believe is this:
>
> you're running git describe on the local side. But the pre-receive
> hook hasn't actually accepted the ref yet so git-describe on the
> server will fail.
>
> This is why you should just check refs/tags/* as regular pre-receive
> hook examples do.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>> --
>> View this message in context: http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764.html
>> Sent from the git mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Junio C Hamano]

Gaurav Chhabra <varuag.chhabra@gmail.com> writes:

> @Junio: From the example you gave, i could conclude the following:
>
> 1) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m third
>   [master d1f1360] third
>   : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD ;# third
>   fatal: no tag exactly matches 'd1f1360b46dfde8c6f341e48ce45d761ed37e357'
>
>> Since after # third commit, no tag was applied to HEAD, so
>> --exact-match resulted in fatal error
>
> 2)  : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m second
> [master d1de78e] second
> : gitster garbage/master; git tag -a -m 'v0.1' v0.1
> : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^ ;# second
>     v0.1
>> Since annotated tag was applied after # second commit, so
>> --exact-match did referenced the commit as expected.
>
> 3) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m initial
>   [master (root-commit) b18cac2] initial
>   : gitster garbage/master; git tag v0.0 ;# lightweight
>   : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^^ ;# first
>   fatal: no tag exactly matches 'b18cac237055d9518f9f92bb4c0a4dac825dce17'
>
>> In this case, it's a lightweight tag and i read today that by
>> default, git describe only shows annotated tags (without --all or
>> --tags). I think it's because of the missing option (--all or
>> --tags) that it resulted in fatal error in this case.
>
> Please correct me if i misunderstood any/all of the above cases.

All correct.  The part that I find questionable is that by checking
with "is this commit a tagged one?" and doing different things.
What makes the initial and the third special to deserve checking
(because they are not annotated with a tag) while skipping the
validation for the second (merely because it has an annotated tag
added to it)?

> My queries:
> A) When you mentioned: "I am feeding three _commits_, not tags.", i
> didn't really get what you're trying to highlight.

I was skipping one round-trip, expecting for you to say "the part
that sets 'commit=$new' for a newly created branch was a mistake,
and it should do 'commit=$(git rev-list $new)'".  And even when $new
is a tag, what comes out of `git rev-list $new` is a sequence of
commit object names, never the tag object.

> You've also mentioned that "And you check everything on that list.  Why?"
>> Was this comment for the portion where the code is validating
>> commits (git rev-list $old_sha1..$new_sha1) for existing branch? If
>> yes, then i didn't really get your concern. Can you kindly elaborate
>> a bit?

I do not question the validity of checking everything between $old..$new;
my question was more about "even though you correctly check everything,
why do you check _only_ the tip by doing 'commit=$new' (instead of
doing 'commit=`git rev-list $new`') when somebody pushes to a new branch?".

>>> git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67adc04078786164939989a5112d98 2>&1 |
>>> grep -o fatal | wc -w
>>>
>>> So i'm wondering why it's not entering the IF block (as confirmed in the
>>> output link)

When you push a branch 'master' and a tag 'v1.0', these things
happen in order:

 (1) all objects that are necessary to ensure that the receiving
     repository has everything reachable from 'master' and 'v1.0'
     are sent to it and stored.  If the receiving end fails to store
     this correctly, everything below is skipped and the operation
     fails.

 (2) pre-receive is run.  Notice that at this point, no refs have
     been updated yet, so "describe" will not know v1.0 tag (if it
     is a new one) exists.  But this step can assume that all new
     objects are already accessible using their object name, so

	case "$old" in
        0000000000000000000000000000000000000000) range=$new ;;
        *) bottom=$old..$new ;;
	esac &&
     	git rev-list $range |
        while read commit
        do
        	check $commit object, e.g.
                git cat-file commit $commit | grep FooBarId
	done

     is expected to work.

 (3) for each ref being updated (in this case, refs/heads/master and
     refs/tags/v1.0), the following happens:

     (3-1) built-in sanity checks may reject the push to the ref,
           e.g. refusing to update a checked out branch, refusing to
           accept a non-fast-forward push that is not forced, etc.

     (3-2) update-hook is run, which may reject the push to this
           ref.

     (3-3) the ref is updated (unless the push is atomic).

 (4) if the push is atomic, the refs are updated.

 (5) post-receive hook is run.  This is for logging and cannot
     affect the outcome of the push.

 (6) for each ref that was updated (in this case, refs/heads/master
     and refs/tags/v1.0), post-update hook is run.  This is for
     logging and cannot affect the outcome of the push.


As your requirement seems to be to validate any and all new commits,
I think it is totally unnecessary to check if any of them happens to
have a tag pointing at it in the first place.

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Jacob Keller]

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Gaurav Chhabra
<varuag.chhabra@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments Junio/Jacob! Actually, the script was written
> by someone before i came and the tag check was also done by my
> colleague recently. I was also trying to implement the tag check
> (using refs/tags which i did saw in few links online) but since my
> colleague implemented this 'git describe' thing first and it looked
> like it was working for few cases that we tried, so we left it as is.
> Frankly, since everything 'seemed' to be working well so far, i never
> really quite looked into it. Now i guess, it's time to correct it.
>
>
> @Junio: From the example you gave, i could conclude the following:
>
> 1) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m third
>   [master d1f1360] third
>   : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD ;# third
>   fatal: no tag exactly matches 'd1f1360b46dfde8c6f341e48ce45d761ed37e357'
>
>> Since after # third commit, no tag was applied to HEAD, so --exact-match resulted in fatal error
>
> 2)  : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m second
> [master d1de78e] second
> : gitster garbage/master; git tag -a -m 'v0.1' v0.1
> : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^ ;# second
>     v0.1
>> Since annotated tag was applied after # second commit, so --exact-match did referenced the commit as expected.
>
> 3) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m initial
>   [master (root-commit) b18cac2] initial
>   : gitster garbage/master; git tag v0.0 ;# lightweight
>   : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^^ ;# first
>   fatal: no tag exactly matches 'b18cac237055d9518f9f92bb4c0a4dac825dce17'
>
>> In this case, it's a lightweight tag and i read today that by default, git describe only shows annotated tags (without --all or --tags). I think it's because of the missing option (--all or --tags) that it resulted in fatal error in this case.
>
> Please correct me if i misunderstood any/all of the above cases.
>
> My queries:
> A) When you mentioned: "I am feeding three _commits_, not tags.", i
> didn't really get what you're trying to highlight. Is it that the code
> i shared 'incorrectly' uses 'git describe' command because it's
> passing the commit ($new_sha1) associated with pushing of the tag
> _instead_ of passing the commit id that the tag actually points to?
>
> B) Coming to the earlier part of the code that you questioned. Thanks
> for that. As i mentioned above, some guy had written it long time back
> (few years). And again, since this never caused any issue, we never
> looked into it. I did read a little about rev-list today but i think
> i'll have to try it out on my machine to understand it well. Will read
> more and then implement the check but yes, i do get an idea what
> you've tried to question. Basically, for new branch or new
> development, we are not really doing complete checks. Correct?
>
> You've also mentioned that "And you check everything on that list.  Why?"
>> Was this comment for the portion where the code is validating commits (git rev-list $old_sha1..$new_sha1) for existing branch? If yes, then i didn't really get your concern. Can you kindly elaborate a bit?
>
> And thanks for sharing the modified version! :)
>
>
> @Jacob: You're right. If i understood correctly what Junio explained,
> then what the code is doing really shouldn't make any sense at all. :)
>
> By the way, you mentioned, "Ok, so the issue I believe is this: you're
> running git describe on the local side. But the pre-receive hook
> hasn't actually accepted the ref yet so git-describe on the server
> will fail."
>> When i push a tag, then as per the output i shared, the commit id associated with my tag push is ac28ca721e67a. So if i do a "git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67a", then
>
> 1) First of all, it shouldn't make any sense because as "git describe"
> should accept _actual_ commit id and not the commit id generated for
> tag push, isn't it?


git describe will attempt to describe the commit ID you pass it. But
the tag object for a "new" tag push will not get "described" because
the pre-receive hook runs before you push it.

It would help a lot if we understood exactly what you are trying to accomplish.

If you run git describe locally, it will find the annotated tag you
made. If you run this remotely during the pre-receive of the tag that
you now now pushing it will not. ie:

$git tag -a some-new-tag ac28ca721e67a
$git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67a
<succeeds and finds "some-new-tag"
$git push origin some-new-tag
<pre-receive runs>
git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67a
<FAILS because the "some-new-tag" hasn't actually bet put into refs yet>

See the difference here? Maybe this isn't what you are trying to do at
all? What exactly behavior do you want to not allow?

Regards,
Jake

>
> 2) If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
> my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
> ac28ca721e67a"?
>

Not with my example above. But maybe I'm incorrect entirely in what
you are actually doing?

>
> @Junio/Jacob: I think i've asked quite a number of questions above but
> i will really appreciate if you could spare some time to clear these
> doubts. I'm definitely going to change this junk code but i would like
> to be sure that i've understood your explanations well.
>
>

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Gaurav Chhabra]

@Junio: So from your detailed explanation (and Jake's comment), i
understand that since my ref wasn't updated on remote so querying the
same using "git describe" resulted in failure, and hence, code was not
entering the IF block. Correct?

Also, while i was reading your replies, i was just thinking that the
following question that i asked Jake doesn't really make sense because
a commit object _is_ being passed (on local machine) to "git
describe", which is what it expects so it should work for sure:

"If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
ac28ca721e67a"?"

@Junio: You wrote: "The part that I find questionable is that by
checking with "is this commit a tagged one?" and doing different
things. What makes the initial and the third special to deserve
checking (because they are not annotated with a tag) while skipping
the validation for the second (merely because it has an annotated tag
added to it)?"
> Isn't the code that i shared doing just the opposite of what you've written? It's checking for annotated tags only and skipping the lightweight ones (although it shouldn't be doing all such things in the first place). Was it a typo on your part?


@Jake: For the question you asked: "It would help a lot if we
understood exactly what you are trying to accomplish."
> I'm not sure how my colleague zeroed in on this "git describe" command but i at least know what we observed (and 'seemed' to work).  We saw that if we use git-describe and pass a commit object, it throws fatal error message. On the other hand, if we pass a tag object, it doesn't throw any fatal error. That's the reason he added that tag check portion.


@Junio/Jake: After going through all the responses that i've received
so far on this forum, i'm thinking how this nonsense code worked for
few cases in the past? When this check was put in place, devs were
getting error while pushing annotated tags. Since we use Gitolite, we
added the following to gitolite.conf and the tag push worked for them:

RW+ refs/tags=developer_name

I'm wondering why.


On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Jacob Keller [via git]
<ml-node+s661346n7635854h97@n2.nabble.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Gaurav Chhabra
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the comments Junio/Jacob! Actually, the script was written
>> by someone before i came and the tag check was also done by my
>> colleague recently. I was also trying to implement the tag check
>> (using refs/tags which i did saw in few links online) but since my
>> colleague implemented this 'git describe' thing first and it looked
>> like it was working for few cases that we tried, so we left it as is.
>> Frankly, since everything 'seemed' to be working well so far, i never
>> really quite looked into it. Now i guess, it's time to correct it.
>>
>>
>> @Junio: From the example you gave, i could conclude the following:
>>
>> 1) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m third
>>   [master d1f1360] third
>>   : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD ;# third
>>   fatal: no tag exactly matches 'd1f1360b46dfde8c6f341e48ce45d761ed37e357'
>>
>>> Since after # third commit, no tag was applied to HEAD, so --exact-match
>>> resulted in fatal error
>>
>> 2)  : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m second
>> [master d1de78e] second
>> : gitster garbage/master; git tag -a -m 'v0.1' v0.1
>> : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^ ;# second
>>     v0.1
>>> Since annotated tag was applied after # second commit, so --exact-match
>>> did referenced the commit as expected.
>>
>> 3) : gitster garbage/master; git commit --allow-empty -m initial
>>   [master (root-commit) b18cac2] initial
>>   : gitster garbage/master; git tag v0.0 ;# lightweight
>>   : gitster garbage/master; git describe --exact-match HEAD^^ ;# first
>>   fatal: no tag exactly matches 'b18cac237055d9518f9f92bb4c0a4dac825dce17'
>>
>>> In this case, it's a lightweight tag and i read today that by default,
>>> git describe only shows annotated tags (without --all or --tags). I think
>>> it's because of the missing option (--all or --tags) that it resulted in
>>> fatal error in this case.
>>
>> Please correct me if i misunderstood any/all of the above cases.
>>
>> My queries:
>> A) When you mentioned: "I am feeding three _commits_, not tags.", i
>> didn't really get what you're trying to highlight. Is it that the code
>> i shared 'incorrectly' uses 'git describe' command because it's
>> passing the commit ($new_sha1) associated with pushing of the tag
>> _instead_ of passing the commit id that the tag actually points to?
>>
>> B) Coming to the earlier part of the code that you questioned. Thanks
>> for that. As i mentioned above, some guy had written it long time back
>> (few years). And again, since this never caused any issue, we never
>> looked into it. I did read a little about rev-list today but i think
>> i'll have to try it out on my machine to understand it well. Will read
>> more and then implement the check but yes, i do get an idea what
>> you've tried to question. Basically, for new branch or new
>> development, we are not really doing complete checks. Correct?
>>
>> You've also mentioned that "And you check everything on that list.  Why?"
>>> Was this comment for the portion where the code is validating commits
>>> (git rev-list $old_sha1..$new_sha1) for existing branch? If yes, then i
>>> didn't really get your concern. Can you kindly elaborate a bit?
>>
>> And thanks for sharing the modified version! :)
>>
>>
>> @Jacob: You're right. If i understood correctly what Junio explained,
>> then what the code is doing really shouldn't make any sense at all. :)
>>
>> By the way, you mentioned, "Ok, so the issue I believe is this: you're
>> running git describe on the local side. But the pre-receive hook
>> hasn't actually accepted the ref yet so git-describe on the server
>> will fail."
>>> When i push a tag, then as per the output i shared, the commit id
>>> associated with my tag push is ac28ca721e67a. So if i do a "git describe
>>> --exact-match ac28ca721e67a", then
>>
>> 1) First of all, it shouldn't make any sense because as "git describe"
>> should accept _actual_ commit id and not the commit id generated for
>> tag push, isn't it?
>
>
> git describe will attempt to describe the commit ID you pass it. But
> the tag object for a "new" tag push will not get "described" because
> the pre-receive hook runs before you push it.
>
> It would help a lot if we understood exactly what you are trying to
> accomplish.
>
> If you run git describe locally, it will find the annotated tag you
> made. If you run this remotely during the pre-receive of the tag that
> you now now pushing it will not. ie:
>
> $git tag -a some-new-tag ac28ca721e67a
> $git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67a
> <succeeds and finds "some-new-tag"
> $git push origin some-new-tag
> <pre-receive runs>
> git describe --exact-match ac28ca721e67a
> <FAILS because the "some-new-tag" hasn't actually bet put into refs yet>
>
> See the difference here? Maybe this isn't what you are trying to do at
> all? What exactly behavior do you want to not allow?
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
>>
>> 2) If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
>> my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
>> ac28ca721e67a"?
>>
>
> Not with my example above. But maybe I'm incorrect entirely in what
> you are actually doing?
>
>>
>> @Junio/Jacob: I think i've asked quite a number of questions above but
>> i will really appreciate if you could spare some time to clear these
>> doubts. I'm definitely going to change this junk code but i would like
>> to be sure that i've understood your explanations well.
>>
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to [hidden email]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764p7635854.html
> To unsubscribe from Git tag: pre-receive hook issue, click here.
> NAML

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Jacob Keller]

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Gaurav Chhabra
<varuag.chhabra@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Junio: So from your detailed explanation (and Jake's comment), i
> understand that since my ref wasn't updated on remote so querying the
> same using "git describe" resulted in failure, and hence, code was not
> entering the IF block. Correct?
>

I assume so.

> Also, while i was reading your replies, i was just thinking that the
> following question that i asked Jake doesn't really make sense because
> a commit object _is_ being passed (on local machine) to "git
> describe", which is what it expects so it should work for sure:
>

It works yes. Git describe finds the nearest tag. --exact-match fails
unless it can find a tag at the commit specified.

> "If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
> my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
> ac28ca721e67a"?"
>

only if ac28ca721e67a does not have an annotated tag associated to it



> @Junio: You wrote: "The part that I find questionable is that by
> checking with "is this commit a tagged one?" and doing different
> things. What makes the initial and the third special to deserve
> checking (because they are not annotated with a tag) while skipping
> the validation for the second (merely because it has an annotated tag
> added to it)?"
>> Isn't the code that i shared doing just the opposite of what you've written? It's checking for annotated tags only and skipping the lightweight ones (although it shouldn't be doing all such things in the first place). Was it a typo on your part?
>
>

I'm not sure what the code you have is trying to do. See below.

> @Jake: For the question you asked: "It would help a lot if we
> understood exactly what you are trying to accomplish."
>> I'm not sure how my colleague zeroed in on this "git describe" command but i at least know what we observed (and 'seemed' to work).  We saw that if we use git-describe and pass a commit object, it throws fatal error message. On the other hand, if we pass a tag object, it doesn't throw any fatal error. That's the reason he added that tag check portion.
>

Hmmm....

>
> @Junio/Jake: After going through all the responses that i've received
> so far on this forum, i'm thinking how this nonsense code worked for
> few cases in the past? When this check was put in place, devs were
> getting error while pushing annotated tags. Since we use Gitolite, we
> added the following to gitolite.conf and the tag push worked for them:
>
> RW+ refs/tags=developer_name
>

Sounds like you needed to add RW permissions to the refs/tags namespace.

> I'm wondering why.
>

Ok, so normally, pre-receive hook is used to implement policy. Ie:
prevent acceptance of pushes that have "bad" content as defined by the
repository owner. For example, preventing push of tags that don't
match some format, or preventing pushes which contain bad stuff.

I could provide some examples or suggestions if you would describe
what sort of policy you're trying to enforce..

git describe will tell you if the commit you're passing it is
associated with an annotated tag. I do not understand who this
information can help you implement any policy, so understanding what
the policy you want is would be the most helpful.

I can't really help more or understand exactly what you were doing
without understanding what policy you were/are trying to implement.

The thing your code is doing today is something like:

for each reference update, locate every commit

for each commit in this reference update, check to see if it already
has an associated tag connected to it.

If it doesn't have a tag, then "do some more checks" which are not
described here.

This doesn't make sense to me at all. I think what you *meant* was this:

for each reference update, if the reference being updated is a tag, skip it

otherwise, for each commit in the reference update do some checks on it.

That is *completely* different from the code you've written today.

Regards,
Jake

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Gaurav Chhabra]

The only thing we wanted to check was whether a ref is a tag. :) Rest
other things are working fine (except for the "commits=$new_sha1"
thing which Junio already pointed out and corrected). I will correct
the pre-receive hook.

The only mystery that remains is about the current nonsensical code
working fine in the past for few annotated tag pushes. It shouldn't
have worked just by providing:

RW+ refs/tags=developer_name

Ref: http://gitolite.com/gitolite/g2/aac.html (Section: "deny" rules
for refs in a repo)


On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jacob Keller [via git]
<ml-node+s661346n7635875h48@n2.nabble.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Gaurav Chhabra
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> @Junio: So from your detailed explanation (and Jake's comment), i
>> understand that since my ref wasn't updated on remote so querying the
>> same using "git describe" resulted in failure, and hence, code was not
>> entering the IF block. Correct?
>>
>
> I assume so.
>
>> Also, while i was reading your replies, i was just thinking that the
>> following question that i asked Jake doesn't really make sense because
>> a commit object _is_ being passed (on local machine) to "git
>> describe", which is what it expects so it should work for sure:
>>
>
> It works yes. Git describe finds the nearest tag. --exact-match fails
> unless it can find a tag at the commit specified.
>
>> "If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
>> my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
>> ac28ca721e67a"?"
>>
>
> only if ac28ca721e67a does not have an annotated tag associated to it
>
>
>
>> @Junio: You wrote: "The part that I find questionable is that by
>> checking with "is this commit a tagged one?" and doing different
>> things. What makes the initial and the third special to deserve
>> checking (because they are not annotated with a tag) while skipping
>> the validation for the second (merely because it has an annotated tag
>> added to it)?"
>>> Isn't the code that i shared doing just the opposite of what you've
>>> written? It's checking for annotated tags only and skipping the lightweight
>>> ones (although it shouldn't be doing all such things in the first place).
>>> Was it a typo on your part?
>>
>>
>
> I'm not sure what the code you have is trying to do. See below.
>
>> @Jake: For the question you asked: "It would help a lot if we
>> understood exactly what you are trying to accomplish."
>>> I'm not sure how my colleague zeroed in on this "git describe" command
>>> but i at least know what we observed (and 'seemed' to work).  We saw that if
>>> we use git-describe and pass a commit object, it throws fatal error message.
>>> On the other hand, if we pass a tag object, it doesn't throw any fatal
>>> error. That's the reason he added that tag check portion.
>>
>
> Hmmm....
>
>>
>> @Junio/Jake: After going through all the responses that i've received
>> so far on this forum, i'm thinking how this nonsense code worked for
>> few cases in the past? When this check was put in place, devs were
>> getting error while pushing annotated tags. Since we use Gitolite, we
>> added the following to gitolite.conf and the tag push worked for them:
>>
>> RW+ refs/tags=developer_name
>>
>
> Sounds like you needed to add RW permissions to the refs/tags namespace.
>
>> I'm wondering why.
>>
>
> Ok, so normally, pre-receive hook is used to implement policy. Ie:
> prevent acceptance of pushes that have "bad" content as defined by the
> repository owner. For example, preventing push of tags that don't
> match some format, or preventing pushes which contain bad stuff.
>
> I could provide some examples or suggestions if you would describe
> what sort of policy you're trying to enforce..
>
> git describe will tell you if the commit you're passing it is
> associated with an annotated tag. I do not understand who this
> information can help you implement any policy, so understanding what
> the policy you want is would be the most helpful.
>
> I can't really help more or understand exactly what you were doing
> without understanding what policy you were/are trying to implement.
>
> The thing your code is doing today is something like:
>
> for each reference update, locate every commit
>
> for each commit in this reference update, check to see if it already
> has an associated tag connected to it.
>
> If it doesn't have a tag, then "do some more checks" which are not
> described here.
>
> This doesn't make sense to me at all. I think what you *meant* was this:
>
> for each reference update, if the reference being updated is a tag, skip it
>
> otherwise, for each commit in the reference update do some checks on it.
>
> That is *completely* different from the code you've written today.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to [hidden email]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764p7635875.html
> To unsubscribe from Git tag: pre-receive hook issue, click here.
> NAML

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Jacob Keller]

To check whether the ref being updated is a tag, you need to check the
3rd parameter. pre-receive receives in the format

<old-value> <new-value> <ref-name>

so you need to check each line's 3rd value which is the ref-name being
updated. If it's in refs/tags then it's a tag update. If it's not, you
can check it as a branch update.

Then you should check all new commits for each branch, as Julio mentioned above.

Checking whether each commit has an associated tag is probably not
what you meant.

Regards,
Jake

On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Gaurav Chhabra
<varuag.chhabra@gmail.com> wrote:
> The only thing we wanted to check was whether a ref is a tag. :) Rest
> other things are working fine (except for the "commits=$new_sha1"
> thing which Junio already pointed out and corrected). I will correct
> the pre-receive hook.
>
> The only mystery that remains is about the current nonsensical code
> working fine in the past for few annotated tag pushes. It shouldn't
> have worked just by providing:
>
> RW+ refs/tags=developer_name
>
> Ref: http://gitolite.com/gitolite/g2/aac.html (Section: "deny" rules
> for refs in a repo)
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jacob Keller [via git]
> <ml-node+s661346n7635875h48@n2.nabble.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Gaurav Chhabra
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> @Junio: So from your detailed explanation (and Jake's comment), i
>>> understand that since my ref wasn't updated on remote so querying the
>>> same using "git describe" resulted in failure, and hence, code was not
>>> entering the IF block. Correct?
>>>
>>
>> I assume so.
>>
>>> Also, while i was reading your replies, i was just thinking that the
>>> following question that i asked Jake doesn't really make sense because
>>> a commit object _is_ being passed (on local machine) to "git
>>> describe", which is what it expects so it should work for sure:
>>>
>>
>> It works yes. Git describe finds the nearest tag. --exact-match fails
>> unless it can find a tag at the commit specified.
>>
>>> "If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
>>> my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
>>> ac28ca721e67a"?"
>>>
>>
>> only if ac28ca721e67a does not have an annotated tag associated to it
>>
>>
>>
>>> @Junio: You wrote: "The part that I find questionable is that by
>>> checking with "is this commit a tagged one?" and doing different
>>> things. What makes the initial and the third special to deserve
>>> checking (because they are not annotated with a tag) while skipping
>>> the validation for the second (merely because it has an annotated tag
>>> added to it)?"
>>>> Isn't the code that i shared doing just the opposite of what you've
>>>> written? It's checking for annotated tags only and skipping the lightweight
>>>> ones (although it shouldn't be doing all such things in the first place).
>>>> Was it a typo on your part?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what the code you have is trying to do. See below.
>>
>>> @Jake: For the question you asked: "It would help a lot if we
>>> understood exactly what you are trying to accomplish."
>>>> I'm not sure how my colleague zeroed in on this "git describe" command
>>>> but i at least know what we observed (and 'seemed' to work).  We saw that if
>>>> we use git-describe and pass a commit object, it throws fatal error message.
>>>> On the other hand, if we pass a tag object, it doesn't throw any fatal
>>>> error. That's the reason he added that tag check portion.
>>>
>>
>> Hmmm....
>>
>>>
>>> @Junio/Jake: After going through all the responses that i've received
>>> so far on this forum, i'm thinking how this nonsense code worked for
>>> few cases in the past? When this check was put in place, devs were
>>> getting error while pushing annotated tags. Since we use Gitolite, we
>>> added the following to gitolite.conf and the tag push worked for them:
>>>
>>> RW+ refs/tags=developer_name
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like you needed to add RW permissions to the refs/tags namespace.
>>
>>> I'm wondering why.
>>>
>>
>> Ok, so normally, pre-receive hook is used to implement policy. Ie:
>> prevent acceptance of pushes that have "bad" content as defined by the
>> repository owner. For example, preventing push of tags that don't
>> match some format, or preventing pushes which contain bad stuff.
>>
>> I could provide some examples or suggestions if you would describe
>> what sort of policy you're trying to enforce..
>>
>> git describe will tell you if the commit you're passing it is
>> associated with an annotated tag. I do not understand who this
>> information can help you implement any policy, so understanding what
>> the policy you want is would be the most helpful.
>>
>> I can't really help more or understand exactly what you were doing
>> without understanding what policy you were/are trying to implement.
>>
>> The thing your code is doing today is something like:
>>
>> for each reference update, locate every commit
>>
>> for each commit in this reference update, check to see if it already
>> has an associated tag connected to it.
>>
>> If it doesn't have a tag, then "do some more checks" which are not
>> described here.
>>
>> This doesn't make sense to me at all. I think what you *meant* was this:
>>
>> for each reference update, if the reference being updated is a tag, skip it
>>
>> otherwise, for each commit in the reference update do some checks on it.
>>
>> That is *completely* different from the code you've written today.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Jake
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>> the body of a message to [hidden email]
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>> below:
>> http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764p7635875.html
>> To unsubscribe from Git tag: pre-receive hook issue, click here.
>> NAML
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Gaurav Chhabra]

Hi Jake,

Thanks about the refs/tags check. I’m aware about this. Junio also
explained it in one of his replies. I was actually confused why my
current code was working in past for few of the annotated tags.
Anyways, now that I have clarity about the mistake in the code, I
guess, I’ll figure it out myself.

@Junio: Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation about the ‘behind
the scenes’ activity during a push process. That was definitely
helpful and will help me in future too.

@Jake: Thanks for your help and your patience in explaining things.



On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:05 AM, Jacob Keller [via git]
<ml-node+s661346n7635968h31@n2.nabble.com> wrote:
> To check whether the ref being updated is a tag, you need to check the
> 3rd parameter. pre-receive receives in the format
>
> <old-value> <new-value> <ref-name>
>
> so you need to check each line's 3rd value which is the ref-name being
> updated. If it's in refs/tags then it's a tag update. If it's not, you
> can check it as a branch update.
>
> Then you should check all new commits for each branch, as Julio mentioned
> above.
>
> Checking whether each commit has an associated tag is probably not
> what you meant.
>
> Regards,
> Jake
>
> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Gaurav Chhabra
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> The only thing we wanted to check was whether a ref is a tag. :) Rest
>> other things are working fine (except for the "commits=$new_sha1"
>> thing which Junio already pointed out and corrected). I will correct
>> the pre-receive hook.
>>
>> The only mystery that remains is about the current nonsensical code
>> working fine in the past for few annotated tag pushes. It shouldn't
>> have worked just by providing:
>>
>> RW+ refs/tags=developer_name
>>
>> Ref: http://gitolite.com/gitolite/g2/aac.html (Section: "deny" rules
>> for refs in a repo)
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Jacob Keller [via git]
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 19, 2015 at 12:55 AM, Gaurav Chhabra
>>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> @Junio: So from your detailed explanation (and Jake's comment), i
>>>> understand that since my ref wasn't updated on remote so querying the
>>>> same using "git describe" resulted in failure, and hence, code was not
>>>> entering the IF block. Correct?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I assume so.
>>>
>>>> Also, while i was reading your replies, i was just thinking that the
>>>> following question that i asked Jake doesn't really make sense because
>>>> a commit object _is_ being passed (on local machine) to "git
>>>> describe", which is what it expects so it should work for sure:
>>>>
>>>
>>> It works yes. Git describe finds the nearest tag. --exact-match fails
>>> unless it can find a tag at the commit specified.
>>>
>>>> "If i got the above right, then shouldn't Git throw an error even on
>>>> my local machine when i'm running "git describe --exact-match
>>>> ac28ca721e67a"?"
>>>>
>>>
>>> only if ac28ca721e67a does not have an annotated tag associated to it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> @Junio: You wrote: "The part that I find questionable is that by
>>>> checking with "is this commit a tagged one?" and doing different
>>>> things. What makes the initial and the third special to deserve
>>>> checking (because they are not annotated with a tag) while skipping
>>>> the validation for the second (merely because it has an annotated tag
>>>> added to it)?"
>>>>> Isn't the code that i shared doing just the opposite of what you've
>>>>> written? It's checking for annotated tags only and skipping the
>>>>> lightweight
>>>>> ones (although it shouldn't be doing all such things in the first
>>>>> place).
>>>>> Was it a typo on your part?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure what the code you have is trying to do. See below.
>>>
>>>> @Jake: For the question you asked: "It would help a lot if we
>>>> understood exactly what you are trying to accomplish."
>>>>> I'm not sure how my colleague zeroed in on this "git describe" command
>>>>> but i at least know what we observed (and 'seemed' to work).  We saw
>>>>> that if
>>>>> we use git-describe and pass a commit object, it throws fatal error
>>>>> message.
>>>>> On the other hand, if we pass a tag object, it doesn't throw any fatal
>>>>> error. That's the reason he added that tag check portion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmmm....
>>>
>>>>
>>>> @Junio/Jake: After going through all the responses that i've received
>>>> so far on this forum, i'm thinking how this nonsense code worked for
>>>> few cases in the past? When this check was put in place, devs were
>>>> getting error while pushing annotated tags. Since we use Gitolite, we
>>>> added the following to gitolite.conf and the tag push worked for them:
>>>>
>>>> RW+ refs/tags=developer_name
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like you needed to add RW permissions to the refs/tags namespace.
>>>
>>>> I'm wondering why.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so normally, pre-receive hook is used to implement policy. Ie:
>>> prevent acceptance of pushes that have "bad" content as defined by the
>>> repository owner. For example, preventing push of tags that don't
>>> match some format, or preventing pushes which contain bad stuff.
>>>
>>> I could provide some examples or suggestions if you would describe
>>> what sort of policy you're trying to enforce..
>>>
>>> git describe will tell you if the commit you're passing it is
>>> associated with an annotated tag. I do not understand who this
>>> information can help you implement any policy, so understanding what
>>> the policy you want is would be the most helpful.
>>>
>>> I can't really help more or understand exactly what you were doing
>>> without understanding what policy you were/are trying to implement.
>>>
>>> The thing your code is doing today is something like:
>>>
>>> for each reference update, locate every commit
>>>
>>> for each commit in this reference update, check to see if it already
>>> has an associated tag connected to it.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't have a tag, then "do some more checks" which are not
>>> described here.
>>>
>>> This doesn't make sense to me at all. I think what you *meant* was this:
>>>
>>> for each reference update, if the reference being updated is a tag, skip
>>> it
>>>
>>> otherwise, for each commit in the reference update do some checks on it.
>>>
>>> That is *completely* different from the code you've written today.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Jake
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>>> the body of a message to [hidden email]
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
>>> below:
>>>
>>> http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764p7635875.html
>>> To unsubscribe from Git tag: pre-receive hook issue, click here.
>>> NAML
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
>> the body of a message to [hidden email]
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
> the body of a message to [hidden email]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
> ________________________________
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:
> http://git.661346.n2.nabble.com/Git-tag-pre-receive-hook-issue-tp7635764p7635968.html
> To unsubscribe from Git tag: pre-receive hook issue, click here.
> NAML

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Keller, Jacob E]

On Mon, 2015-07-20 at 13:13 +0530, Gaurav Chhabra wrote:
> Hi Jake,
> 
> Thanks about the refs/tags check. I’m aware about this. Junio also
> explained it in one of his replies. I was actually confused why my
> current code was working in past for few of the annotated tags.
> Anyways, now that I have clarity about the mistake in the code, I
> guess, I’ll figure it out myself.
> 
> @Junio: Thanks a lot for your detailed explanation about the ‘behind
> the scenes’ activity during a push process. That was definitely
> helpful and will help me in future too.
> 
> @Jake: Thanks for your help and your patience in explaining things.
> 

No problem. I'm also not certain why it would have worked in some
cases, so that is definitely confusing, but at least you can get it
sorted to do what you intend. Best of luck!

Regards,
Jake

Re: Git tag: pre-receive hook issue

[Jakub Narębski]

On 2015-07-19, Jacob Keller wrote:

> git describe will tell you if the commit you're passing it is
> associated with an annotated tag. I do not understand who this
> information can help you implement any policy, so understanding what
> the policy you want is would be the most helpful.

One policy I can think of that may have use of checking if commit
is tagged is requiring some extra restrictions on the commit that
is being tagged, for example that the only file that it can touch
is version.h / VERSION-FILE, and no code changes at all.

-- 
Jakub Narębski