Re: (Ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook

2012-07-15 Thread Wincent Colaiuta
On Jul 14, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Wincent Colaiuta 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 "co

Re: (Ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook

2012-07-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
Wincent Colaiuta 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 an

Re: (Ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook

2012-07-14 Thread Wincent Colaiuta
On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:25 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote: > Wincent Colaiuta writes: > >> Specifically, I was thinking of doing the following: >> >> - on pushing into our authoritative repo, we replicate to a second >> "scratch" repo where all the dirty work gets done >> >> - the scratch repo has a

Re: (Ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook

2012-07-14 Thread Junio C Hamano
ct and allow us to start sharing code today rather than a > year or two years from now when the entire code base is audited. > > I'm thinking of (ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook as a > means to do this. Does this sound sane, or are there better options? > >

(Ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook

2012-07-14 Thread Wincent Colaiuta
r two years from now when the entire code base is audited. I'm thinking of (ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook as a means to do this. Does this sound sane, or are there better options? Specifically, I was thinking of doing the following: - on pushing into our authoritative repo