Wincent Colaiuta [off-list ref] writes:
On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I did not see anything wrong doing what you described in the
post-receive, even though having the hook in the "scratch" felt
strange, as the "copying from authoritative" would also want to be
automated and the natural triggering mechanism to do so would be a
post-receive there. What issues were you worried about?
The part that I left out, to keep things simple, is that ...
I said "strange", not "wrong". If it is undesirable to hook the
"authoritative" repository, it is perfectly fine to hook on the
receiving end.
So what issues were you worried about?
On Jul 14, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Wincent Colaiuta [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
quoted
I did not see anything wrong doing what you described in the
post-receive, even though having the hook in the "scratch" felt
strange, as the "copying from authoritative" would also want to be
automated and the natural triggering mechanism to do so would be a
post-receive there. What issues were you worried about?
The part that I left out, to keep things simple, is that ...
I said "strange", not "wrong". If it is undesirable to hook the
"authoritative" repository, it is perfectly fine to hook on the
receiving end.
So what issues were you worried about?
I guess I was just a little worried about using filter-branch in a completely automated context (I have used it previously, but always in a manual fashion to do explicit "surgery" on the history), so I really just wanted a sanity check. Thanks for your input; it's much appreciated.
We have a strict fast-forward-only policy on our master branch, so I think the hook will be quite simple to write and won't require us to handle any crazy edge cases.
Cheers,
Wincent