On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 08:52:48AM -0700, B. Lachele Foley wrote: > Our group could really use a pre-pull hook. Is there already a way to do > this? I wrote a little wrapper script in bash for it, but that's not ideal. > > Here is our use case: > > The code in our repo is coupled to a database. We have made it so that all > the parts of the database that are controlled by developers are git-managed > within the repo. However, it is often convenient or otherwise desirable > for the developer to edit the relevant database tables directly (in the > usual manner, by connecting to the DB server and using SQL commands,etc.). > But, if this happens, it is very important that the developer has dumped > the relevant data into the git-managed files and committed the changes > before pulling. Doing this ensures that there will be a merge conflict if, > for example, two devs have modified the same row in the same table (a > legitimate possibility for us). > > The pre-pull hook we would write would do something like this: It would > dump the relevant data to temporary files and compare them with the > git-managed versions. If there are differences, a pull would not be > allowed until the dev has made the git-managed files match the contents of > their database. > > I looked briefly at the source code for git. I think I found where I would > need to put the new code, but also found that I would need to learn many > new things before making the change. So, if I do it, there might be a > considerable wait. Therefore, part 2 of this question is: does anyone know > who to ask about implementing this feature if there is not another way to > handle the situation?
Well, I think you might have been derailed a bit by your research ;-) The thing is, `git pull`, is `git fetch` followed by `git merge` with some magic thrown in. The magic here is the reason many seasoned Git users suggest to not use `git pull` ever, or at least not before one have became a seasoned Git user onself - to know what exactly happens when they run `git pull`, and what to do if that thing fails. Hence an approach you might try to adopt is to write your own high-level (or "porcelain-level", as Git devs would call it) script/program which your devs would call instead of `git pull`. That command would mimic the behaviour of `git pull` to the necessary degree - read the current branch's configuration to figure out what upstream repo+branch combo it is linked to, then `git fetch` what is necessary, then run your checks then merge - if the checks pass. Note that on *nix systems installing such a script program is as easy as dropping it under any directory on the user's $PATH - so that if you put a file named "foo" under, say, /usr/local/bin, then running `git foo` will make the Git front-end program to find that /usr/local/bin/foo and execute it. I do understand making this thing is an administrative burden but I'd argue it's a lesser burden than supporting a fork of Git with your custom patches or convincing the Git devs to implement such a feature. Still, if you anyway want to proceed with getting in contact with the Git devs, please follow the procedure described in [2]. 1. https://longair.net/blog/2009/04/16/git-fetch-and-merge/ 2. https://gist.github.com/tfnico/4441562#writing-an-email-to-the-developers-list -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Git for human beings" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to git-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
