Re: [PATCH 0/2] upload-pack: pre- and post- hooks

[Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org>]

On 1 February 2010 21:31, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
> Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 1 February 2010 20:50, Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org> wrote:
>> > Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
[...]
>> >> At some point if the future, if needed, this could also be made a part of the
>> >> negotiation between the client and server.
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I follow.
>> >
>> > Are you proposing the server advertises that it wants to run hooks,
>> > and lets the client decide whether or not they should be executed?
>>
>> Something like that. I was thinking the client could always advertise
>> whether the it wants to allow the hooks to be executed or not (which
>> would override the default value of the global variable I introduced).
>> Either approach would work, though the second is simpler but also
>> dumber.
>>
>> Again, this might be over-complicating things, which is why I did not
>> implement it. I just wanted to make a note of the fact that this could
>> be done if the need is felt.
>
> My concern with this is, users might disable the hook all of the
> time, and then servers that actually want the hook (e.g. gentoo's
> use of the pre-upload-pack to avoid initial clones over git://)
> would be stuck, just like they are today.
>
> No, its just not sane to give the user a choice whether or not they
> should execute something remotely.

Ah, sorry I wasn't clear about this. I've made it so that when
pre-upload-pack fails, the entire operation fails. This makes sense
because pre-upload-pack is meant to check things like "do we want
allow the user to get the pack". For post-upload-pack, failure only
results in a warning, since the actual upload is already done and
there's not much to do other than log the failure.

-- 
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)