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
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
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
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?
>
>
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
5 matches
Mail list logo