Jeremiah Foster venit, vidit, dixit 27.04.2010 10:33:
Show 21 quoted lines
>
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 8:11 PM, Jacob Helwig wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:04, Jeremiah Foster
>>>
>>>
>>> Can I confirm that hooks work with this type of transport?
>>
>> The real problem is that you're using a post-commit hook (or at
>> least everything you said in your original email implies you are).
>> post-commit hooks are only triggered in your _local_ repository,
>> since this is the only place you actually commit. Doesn't matter
>> which transport you're using, post-commit will never be triggered
>> by a push.
>>
>> You want one of the receive, or update hooks, if you're putting
>> this in a central place, where it needs to be triggered by someone
>> doing a push in to the repo.
>
> Thanks Jacob. I'd just like to confirm that I am, in fact, using the
> update hook. I logged into the server holding the git repo, cd'd to
That used to be different ;) update hook on the server is good.
Show 6 quoted lines
> the .git/hooks/ directory. Moved the update.sample to update. Changed
> the code to something trivial that would echo back to the client for
> testing. I checked permissions, checked ownership, ran the code as
> the git repo owner. I logged out, did a trivial change in the client
> repo, ran git commit -a -m "foo" and expected that the trivial update
> script to run on the server would produce output to the client. This
But this is the same problem backwards. Again: Please try to understand what commit does, and what push does, in terms of where (local repo vs. server) a change happens:
As long as you only commit in your local repo nothing changes on the server (remote repo), so no hook is triggered there.
> never occurred. I further tested the client hooks which also did not
> run.
Which ones?
committing locally triggers post-commit on your local repo. pushing to remote triggers post-update (and others) on the remote server's repo.
Michael
Jeremiah Foster
