Re: pre-rebase hook: capture documentation in a <

[brian m. carlson]

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 04:35:25PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
> Junio wrote in "What's-cooking":
> 
> > ... I do not know how well they are tested
> > in the field by people using 'master' in their everyday workflow.
> > Ideally, our release process wants to see more people using 'next'
> > in their everyday workflow to keep 'master' more stable than any
> > tagged release, but I do not have a good idea on how to encourage
> > it more than we currently do.
> 
> Our internal release of git @ Google is debian experimental,
> which is basically the 'next' branch + this patch + another patch.
> 
> AFAICT It is a resend of
> https://public-inbox.org/git/20120308122105.GA1562@burratino/
> 
> As Jonathan is a Debian Developer, it is easy for us to base
> our internal version onto debian experimental, but long term we may
> want to base our internal version on the original next. :)
> To do so, upstream this one last meaningful patch.
> 
> The 'another patch' from above is changing and hardcoding
> the version number, which we do not want to upstream.

Thanks for sending this in.  I had wanted to do so myself so I could
easily automate building Git packages based on the Debian packaging, but
I never got around to it.
-- 
brian m. carlson / brian with sandals: Houston, Texas, US
https://www.crustytoothpaste.net/~bmc | My opinion only
OpenPGP: https://keybase.io/bk2204


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

pre-rebase hook: capture documentation in a <

[Stefan Beller]

From: Jonathan Nieder 

Without this change, the sample hook does not pass a syntax check
(sh -n):

  $ sh -n hooks--pre-rebase.sample
  hooks--pre-rebase.sample: line 101: syntax error near unexpected token `('
  hooks--pre-rebase.sample: line 101: `   merged into it again (either directly 
or indirectly).'

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder 
Improved-by: Junio C Hamano 
Signed-off-by: Stefan Beller 
---

Junio wrote in "What's-cooking":

> ... I do not know how well they are tested
> in the field by people using 'master' in their everyday workflow.
> Ideally, our release process wants to see more people using 'next'
> in their everyday workflow to keep 'master' more stable than any
> tagged release, but I do not have a good idea on how to encourage
> it more than we currently do.

Our internal release of git @ Google is debian experimental,
which is basically the 'next' branch + this patch + another patch.

AFAICT It is a resend of
https://public-inbox.org/git/20120308122105.GA1562@burratino/

As Jonathan is a Debian Developer, it is easy for us to base
our internal version onto debian experimental, but long term we may
want to base our internal version on the original next. :)
To do so, upstream this one last meaningful patch.

The 'another patch' from above is changing and hardcoding
the version number, which we do not want to upstream.

Thanks,
Stefan


 templates/hooks--pre-rebase.sample | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/templates/hooks--pre-rebase.sample 
b/templates/hooks--pre-rebase.sample
index 053f111..b7f81c1 100755
--- a/templates/hooks--pre-rebase.sample
+++ b/templates/hooks--pre-rebase.sample
@@ -88,9 +88,7 @@ else
exit 1
 fi
 
-exit 0
-
-
+<<\DOC_END
 
 This sample hook safeguards topic branches that have been
 published from being rewound.
@@ -167,3 +165,5 @@ To compute (2):
git rev-list master..topic
 
if this is empty, it is fully merged to "master".
+
+DOC_END
-- 
1.8.5.3