On Mon, 14 Sep 2009, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-09-14 at 18:21 -0400, Daniel Barkalow wrote:
> > On Sun, 13 Sep 2009, Owen Taylor wrote:
>
> [...]
> > I think the classification logic should move to match_refs(), assuming you
> > mean the ref->nonfastforward and ref->deletion stuff. It would probably
> > also be worth having a bit for "already up to date". (Note that
> > cmd_send_pack() calls match_refs(), so there wouldn't have to be
> > duplication between the legacy cmd_send_pack() code path and the
> > transport_push() codepath if the code moved into match_refs()).
> [...]
> > > - You add another vfunc to the transport - '->get_capabilities' or
> > > something - that encapsulates server_supports("delete-refs").
> >
> > I think it would be better to have a vfunc that takes refs with the
> > classification bits set and sets the statuses based on the idea that we're
> > not going to lose any races and the remote won't reject our change for
> > some reason we don't know about. There's a potentially large and varied
> > set of restrictions on what the other side is willing to accept, and I
> > think it would be better to put that on the other side of the vfunc,
> > rather than having the main transport code know that "delete-refs" means
> > that you can delete refs, "nonfastforward" means you can force a
> > non-fast-forward, something means you can create files named "CVS", etc.
>
> match_refs seems like a reasonable place to put this logic, but I'm not
> sure I completely follow what you are proposing in terms of
> transport-specific customization.
>
> match_refs() is called from a couple of places where there is no
> 'transport' (cmd_send_pack() and http-push.c) so it can't itself call
> into the transport code.
>
> Are you thinking of a virtual function that would be a "second pass"
> after the main logic done is done by match_refs; so ->check_refs()
> virtual function?
Yes. match_refs() would answer the question of what the change to the ref
is, while ->check_refs() would determine whether, for this transport, that
change is possible. transport_push() would call match_refs(), then
->check_refs() for transport-specific limitations, then local "are you
sure" checks, then push_refs(). Other places that call match_refs() would
either call the appropriate implementation of check_refs()
(e.g., from cmd_send_pack) or just let the change get rejected when it is
actually attempted.
> How would the 'bit for "already up to date"' differ from
> REF_STATUS_UPTODATE. ?
It would put all of the things that match_refs() generated in the
collection of 1-bit flags, and leave ->status entirely for the
transport-specific code to set. Possibly transport_push() should set
status to REF_STATUS_UPTODATE if the bit is set, and similarly set status
to REF_STATUS_REJECT_NONFASTFORWARD if nonfastforward and not force.
> > I think a pre-push hook would be popular; I know I'd like to have a hook
> > that makes sure that I signed off anything I'm pushing (when the server
> > might check that *somebody* did, but wouldn't know that this push is
> > supposed to be me), and I'd like a hook that checks that I've referenced
> > an issue in an issue tracker for each commit that I'm pushing (but only
> > when I go to push it).
>
> If I can figure out the rest of it, I'll look at adding a hook on top as
> a sweetener :-)
Sounds like a good plan.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html