Signed-off-by: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <redacted>
---
templates/hooks--update.sample | 9 +++++++++
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
In one project I'm in we are using a centralized Git repository that many
developers have access to. As such, we want to prevent tags from being
created by push operations and have them created by the administrators.
This is a modification to the sample update hook to allow this to simply be
a configuration option.
receive.denyCreate actually seems to be what my project wants, but I can see
more fine-grained support being nice-to-have. For example, we might want
to allow developers to create branches in a developer-specific namespace
but still disallow pushing annotated tags.
diff --git a/templates/hooks--update.sample b/templates/hooks--update.sample
index fd63b2d..c783973 100755
--- a/templates/hooks--update.sample
+++ b/templates/hooks--update.sample
@@ -7,6 +7,9 @@
#
# Config
# ------
+# hooks.allowannotated
+# This boolean sets whether annotated tags will be allowed into the
+# repository. By default they won't be.
# hooks.allowunannotated
# This boolean sets whether unannotated tags will be allowed into the
# repository. By default they won't be.
@@ -43,6 +46,7 @@ if [ -z "$refname" -o -z "$oldrev" -o -z "$newrev" ]; then
fi
# --- Config
+allowannotated=$(git config --bool hooks.allowannotated)
allowunannotated=$(git config --bool hooks.allowunannotated)
allowdeletebranch=$(git config --bool hooks.allowdeletebranch)
denycreatebranch=$(git config --bool hooks.denycreatebranch)
@@ -86,6 +90,11 @@ case "$refname","$newrev_type" in
;;
refs/tags/*,tag)
# annotated tag
+ if [ "$oldrev" = "$zero" -a "$allowannotated" != "true" ]; then
+ echo "*** Creating a tag is not allowed in this repository" >&2
+ exit 1
+ fi
+
if [ "$allowmodifytag" != "true" ] && git rev-parse $refname > /dev/null 2>&1
then
echo "*** Tag '$refname' already exists." >&2
--
1.7.1
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Hi,
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
Signed-off-by: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <redacted>
---
templates/hooks--update.sample | 9 +++++++++
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
In one project I'm in we are using a centralized Git repository that many
developers have access to. As such, we want to prevent tags from being
created by push operations and have them created by the administrators.
This is a modification to the sample update hook to allow this to simply be
a configuration option.
This kind of justification belongs above the "---", I think.
No opinion on the functionality itself. Just:
quoted hunk
--- a/templates/hooks--update.sample
+++ b/templates/hooks--update.sample
@@ -7,6 +7,9 @@
#
# Config
# ------
+# hooks.allowannotated
+# This boolean sets whether annotated tags will be allowed into the
+# repository. By default they won't be.
hooks.denyannotated (defaulting to false) would be more consistent
with hooks.denycreatebranch, no?
Or maybe hooks.denycreatetag --- a situation in which unannotated
tags should be allowed but annotated denied seems hard to imagine.
Hope that helps,
Jonathan
In <20101031202433.GB21240@burratino>, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote:
quoted
Signed-off-by: "Boyd Stephen Smith Jr." <redacted>
---
templates/hooks--update.sample | 9 +++++++++
1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
In one project I'm in we are using a centralized Git repository that many
developers have access to. As such, we want to prevent tags from being
created by push operations and have them created by the administrators.
This is a modification to the sample update hook to allow this to simply
be a configuration option.
This kind of justification belongs above the "---", I think.
Eh, poop. I wasn't sure were it went since it's been so long since I sent a
patch in. I thought only the "commit message" went above the "---" and my
explanation seemed a bit over-long for a commit message.
I'll STFW next time and get it correct; I'd like to make it easy to use git am
or git apply on the mail so that it is easier to review.
No opinion on the functionality itself. Just:
quoted
--- a/templates/hooks--update.sample
+++ b/templates/hooks--update.sample
@@ -7,6 +7,9 @@
#
# Config
# ------
+# hooks.allowannotated
+# This boolean sets whether annotated tags will be allowed into the
+# repository. By default they won't be.
hooks.denyannotated (defaulting to false) would be more consistent
with hooks.denycreatebranch, no?
Most of the flags were allow* and that seems to be a better way to approach
access restrictions like this. denycreatebranch is the odd one out, and I was
considering a patch that would change it to an allow* as well.
Still, I'm happy to change the new flag to a deny* if there's consensus that
it is better implemented that way.
Or maybe hooks.denycreatetag ---
That's probably better if you think of this as being analogous to
denycreatebranch. When I wrote the patch I was thinking of this flag as being
analogous to allowunannotated.
a situation in which unannotated
tags should be allowed but annotated denied seems hard to imagine.
Agreed.
--
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net ((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/