On Jul 14, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Wincent Colaiuta <w...@wincent.com> writes:
>> On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> 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.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to