On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 09:58:04AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > * James Carlson <james.d.carlson at sun.com> [2008-07-08 13:57]: > > That means that we really do need to stop usage of /ws/onnv-gate as a > > gate, and use hg the way it was meant to be used -- with > > ssh://onnv.sfbay/ instead. > > Yes. > > > If /ws/onnv-gate exists at all, it needs to be just a copy of the > > source code itself, rather than an actual Mercurial repository. (I > > know some people cd over to the gate and run cscope; that usage should > > probably be preserved.) > > It could continue to be shared read-only; I don't believe we have any
The repo that receives the pushes should not be available to anyone via NFS. It would have to be a downstream clone that is made available for your community-cscope purposes. Also, you'd need to add a gate hook that does an update after each push completes...ug, don't. A pull can pick up changesets that have been pushed, but haven't had their transaction closed. Then the gate hook might decide to abort the transaction. Now you have someone out there who (inadvertently) snuck in and obtained a copy of the now-rejected changesets, and this will, eventually, lead to a point where things get very confusing as those changesets continue to float around among promiscuous users. Rich had been talking about adding a lock to the gate push hook, and a pull hook that would check that lock...dunno. If pulling via NFS, would it be possible to prevent that pull hook from firing, or from working properly? Dean
