www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Querna <p...@querna.org>
Subject Re: Full support for Git at Apache, a dangerously indigo plan.
Date Thu, 04 Nov 2010 06:11:50 GMT
On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Paul Querna <paul@querna.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 9:30 PM, Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>   - Authorisation is better done in "update" hook than
>>>    "pre-receive".   Update gets called once for each ref
>>>    being pushed, so you can accept some and reject others.
>>>    Pre-receive is all or nothing -- one bad ref can reject
>>>    all the refs being pushed, which could be confusing.   Or
>>>    not...
>>
>> For us Group Authorization is actually mostly going to be on a
>> whole-repository basis.   I don't think we intend to block individual
>> commits based on the contents of the commits -- other than possibly
>> issues with merge commits that haven't really been discussed in depth
>> yet.
>
> I probably didn't explain it properly.  Let's say you have a
> "no force push" policy, and someone tried to push 2 branches
> in the same push command, and one of the branches (foo) is a
> fast-forward, while the other branch (bar) happens to be a
> force-push.  Something like: `git push origin foo +bar`.
>
> If you do your checking in post-receive, both branches will
> be rejected.  If you do it in the update hook, the rejection
> is selective -- only "bar" will be rejected.

Ah, That makes sense now, thank you!

Mime
View raw message