On 02/14/2018 02:35 AM, Jeff King wrote: > On Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 07:36:47PM +0100, Leo Gaspard wrote: >> [...] > I think there may have been some more concrete proposals after that, but > that's what I was able to dig up quickly.
Thanks! Though it looks way above my knowledge of git internals as well as time available, it looks like a great project, and I hope it someday succeeds! >> That said, actually I just noticed an issue in the “add a >> remote.<name>.fetch option to fetch to refs/quarantine then have the >> post-fetch hook do the work”: it means if I run `git pull`, then: >> 1. The remote references will be pulled to refs/quarantine/... >> 2. The post-fetch hook will copy the accepted ones to refs/remotes/... >> 3. The `git merge FETCH_HEAD` called by pull will merge FETCH_HEAD into >> local branches... and so merge from refs/quarantine. > > Good point. You can't munge FETCH_HEAD by playing with refspecs. > > I am starting to come around to the idea that "pre-fetch" might be the > best way to do what you want. Not to rewrite refs, but perhaps to simply > reject them. In the same way that we allow pre-receive to reject pushed > refs (both are, after all, the final check on admitting new history into > the repository, just in opposite directions). > >> So, when thinking about it, I'm back to thinking the proper hook >> interface should be the one of the tweak-fetch hook, but its >> implementation should make it not go crazy on remote servers. And so >> that the implementation should do all this refs/quarantine wizardry >> inside git itself. > > So does anybody actually want to be able to adjust the refs as they pass > through? It really sounds like you just want to be able to reject or not > reject the fetch. And that rejecting would be the uncommon case, so it's > OK to just abort the whole operation and expect the user to figure it > out. This completely fits my use case (modulo the fact that it's more similar to the `update` hook than to `pre-receive` I think, as verifying the signature requires the objects to already have been downloaded), indeed, though I'm not sure it would have fit Joey's (based on my understanding, adding a merge was what was originally asked for). Actually, I'm wondering if the existing semantics of `update` could not be reused for the `pre-fetch`. Would it make sense to just call `update` during a fetch in the same way as during a receive-pack? That said it likely makes this a breaking change, though it's maybe unlikely that a repository is used both for fetching and for receive-pack'ing, it could happen. So the proposal as I understand it would currently be adding a `fetch-update` hook that does exactly the same thing as `update` but for `fetch`. This solves my use case in a nice way, though it likely doesn't solve Joey's original one (which has been taken care of by a wrapper since then). What do you all think about it?
