From: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 06:13:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Centralized processes in git
Message-ID: <20070821061336.GC7323@coredump.intra.peff.net>
In-Reply-To: <46CA3398.9060803@midwinter.com>

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 08:36:40AM +0800, Steven Grimm wrote:

> I wonder if it makes sense to expose a repository locking mechanism for this 
> kind of application. The builtin git commands would test for the lock and 
> block (waiting up to some configurable timeout) until it went away, but 
> wouldn't necessarily ever actually lock things themselves. Or maybe a 
> shared/exclusive lock (aka an rwlock) would be appropriate here; the 
> repository-altering commands would grab a shared lock.

For this use case, I don't think you need to touch the core git commands
at all. Since we're just talking about a repo that people are pushing
into, why not just grab the lock in a hook before accepting the push?

That serializes the push, but each push can do arbitrary work while
holding the lock.

-Peff