Re: [Proposal] Clonable scripts

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
[off-list ref] wrote:

Niels Basjes wrote:

quoted

As we all know the hooks ( in .git/hooks ) are not cloned along with
the code of a project.
Now this is a correct approach for the scripts that do stuff like
emailing the people responsible for releases or submitting the commit
to a CI system.

More often than not, maintainers come with these hooks and they keep
them private.

Yes.

quoted

Initially I wanted to propose introducing fully clonable (pre-commit)
hook scripts.
However I can imagine that a malicious opensource coder can create a
github repo and try to hack the computer of a contributer via those
scripts. So having such scripts is a 'bad idea'.

I think it's a good idea, since the contributer can look through the scripts.

What I meant to say is that having "fully functional unrestricted
scripts" that are cloned is a "bad idea".
Having "restricted cloned scripts" to me is a "goog idea" (or atleast,
that is what I propose here).

quoted

3) For the regular hooks this language is also support and when
located in the (not cloned!) .git/hooks directory they are just as
powerful as a normal script (i.e. can control CI, send emails, etc.).

I'm confused now; how can .git/hooks be as powerful as .githooks? The
former users should consider uploading their code on GitHub.

The way I envisioned is is that the scripting language in .git/hooks
is "pick any language you like" with the builtin language as a new
addition.
In the .githooks (which is under version control in the code base and
cloned) is a the same builtin language, yet constrained in a sandbox.

Which reminds me that we need to have GitTogethers. Thanks for this!

You're welcome.

-- 
Best regards / Met vriendelijke groeten,

Niels Basjes