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
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