Hi, >>> Some projects (e.g., moose) reject a noncompliant push. The >>> committer can then rewrite the patch locally before it is >>> published and resubmit. >>> >>> >>> IIRC, this is done server-side, but with a DVCS, that's too late (or >>> causes the "pusher" a lot more trouble). Hg and Git both support >>> client-side commit hooks. >>> >>> The upside is that setting the check server-side you ensure it is run. >>> Otherwise you have to rely on each committer to configure it locally. >> >> Yeah, that was my intention. We can certainly provide instructions to set a >> commit-hook, but it's the user's responsibility to set this up. The only way >> to enforce compliance is on the server's side. And yes, even though we are >> using a DVCS, we have a central repository where finally all commits are fed >> to. > > Right, sorry my mistake initially referring to the push. We provide an > appropriate commit-hook people can use and then on push we reject > (automatically) noncompliant code (i.e. code that hasn't been passed through > the commit hook properly)?
Yes, that appears most reasonable to me. An automatic update of .hg/hgrc as Jed proposed is certainly an option. I prefer opt-in over opt-out in this case. Best regards, Karli
