On Aug 31, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > The push fails because a remote hook disallows it. What then?
The same thing that happens when you try to push to a read-only repo, or push while the Internet connection is down, or push to a repo you accidentally cloned anonymously by forgetting user@ in the URL, or push to a server that’s just run out of disk space, or… Fossil already has to cope with such problems. > That becomes fossil's problem No, it’s the hook-writer’s problem. The hook-writer solves that in the normal way: log the problem so that a human can figure out how to solve it, then retry the commit. This is part of what I was implying when I spoke of a CGI-like hook calling protocol. If you try an HTTP POST to a site you aren’t logged into, it will likely give you a 400-series error along with some error text, which tells you what happened and gives you a clue how to fix it. In the same way, an external Fossil hook program can return some error code and a string that makes its way from the remote host to the local Fossil client. > Many commercial/enterprise environments don't allow this. We once, after 8 > months of development using 'maven' as a build tool, had to port everything > to ant after discovering that the remote site does not allow external > internet access (in or out). How do you imagine such a problem could bite a Fossil user? Case 1: They add a hook to the remote server, it fails, so they remove it, and Fossil goes back to running. No 8-month submarine time. Case 2: They have a perfectly working Fossil setup with hooks, then 8 months later they move it to a new remote site, and it fails immediately because none of the hook scripts will run. Now they get to choose whether to disable hooks or solve the site restriction. If they choose the first option, Fossil goes back to working the same way it does everywhere else, which I think we can agree to summarize as, “Adequate,” at the least. :) Hooks are optional. They may add site-specific restrictions, but bypassing these restrictions does not harm the Fossil DB. I imagine some people will try to use hooks to create inviolable constraints, but that’s predicated on those hooks actually running, and not being bypassable. That’s purely a local administration problem, not something that the Fossil project has to solve. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
