From: Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 08:17:13 GMT
Subject: Re: (Ab)using filter-branch from a post-receive hook
Message-ID: <11BD88E2-F82C-4CD9-8EA3-1CF263D7C53A@wincent.com>
In-Reply-To: <7va9z15xrc.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Jul 14, 2012, at 11:44 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Wincent Colaiuta <win@wincent.com> 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 and the natural triggering mechanism to do so would be a
>>> post-receive there.  What issues were you worried about?
>> 
>> The part that I left out, to keep things simple, is that ...
> 
> I said "strange", not "wrong".  If it is undesirable to hook the
> "authoritative" repository, it is perfectly fine to hook on the
> receiving end.
> 
> So what issues were you worried about?

I guess I was just a little worried about using filter-branch in a completely automated context (I have used it previously, but always in a manual fashion to do explicit "surgery" on the history), so I really just wanted a sanity check. Thanks for your input; it's much appreciated.

We have a strict fast-forward-only policy on our master branch, so I think the hook will be quite simple to write and won't require us to handle any crazy edge cases.

Cheers,
Wincent