Re: [PATCH] Fix race and deadlock when sending pack

From: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>
Date: Dec 19, 2005, 21:01 UTC
Message-ID: <7vy82gg5t7.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0512191236290.25300@iabervon.org>

Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org> writes:

Show 6 quoted lines

>> My immediate reaction was "do not do it then", but you are
>> right.  Hooks are run after all the protocol exchanges are done,
>> so they should be free to throw any garbage at the other end.
>
> If we extend it to transfer multiple things, wouldn't we want to run hooks 
> after each of them, rather than all at the end?

We do transfer multiple things already, and all protocol exchange happens before everything is transferred. And hooks are run for each refs being updated, one by one. What we do not have is a reporting mechanism that says "we refused to update this ref because of the hooks/update policy return value for it". Even if we later add that reporting mechanism, as I outlined in a separate message earlier, I think it is OK to keep running the update hooks after the pack transfer part.

Show 10 quoted lines

> As for the policy:
>
> We definitely want to let hooks write to stdout, because git programs that 
> you might want to run in hooks write to stdout.
> ... I'd sort of like to avoid making people expect that there 
> is necessarily a path for text going back to the user directly.
> ... I 
> also think that messages are likely to be at least as useful to the owner 
> of the target repository as the person pushing, which is why I'd prefer a 
> log file.

This part I mostly agree with. Will have to think about the details but probably I'd punt this for now and declare it post 1.0 ;-).