I wish there were a way to let me annotate a commit with a statement
like this:
* When merging a branch that does not have me in it into a trunk
that already has me, do this extra check on the result of the
merge before allowing it to be recorded.
For example, suppose there is a topic that changes all instances of
this
__attribute__((format(printf, X, Y)))
into a new macro FORMAT_PRINTF(X, Y). With such a facility, I can
annotate the commit at the tip of that series to define an extra
check:
! git diff HEAD | grep '^+.*__attribute__((format(printf'
which would prevent me from merging a topic that introduces a new
instance of the printf-format attribute that is spelled in an
old-fashioned way.
In this particular example, it might be even better if the facility
allowed me to declare something like this instead:
* When merging a branch that does not have me in it into a trunk
that already has me, do this extra processing on the result of
the merge before recording it.
The difference between them is the "extra processing" part. For
this example, it would be something that is built around:
perl -p -e '
s{__attribute__\(\(format\(\s*printf,\s*(\d+),\s*(\d+)\)\)\)}
{FORMAT_PRINTF($1, $2)}gx
'
to update the old-fashioned one to use the new macro, and the result
would become an evil merge.
To realize this, there are low-hanging-fruit building blocks that
are trivial:
- Such an annotation can be made as a note attached to the commit
in question;
- Such a check can be done in pre-commit hook;
- Such a pre-commit hook can iterate over this set of commits
DIFF=$(git rev-list --left-right HEAD...MERGE_HEAD)
collect these Merge Gate annotations from the commit appears on
the left hand side (e.g. only exists on the trunk that a side
branch is about to be merged in), and run them.
But the last one feels very costly, and I suspect that there must be
a better way to do this. I do not think we want the "what to do"
part (i.e. checking new lines for __attribute__ in the first
example, or rewriting new lines that has __attribute_ in the second
example) to be in git-core; that clearly is outside the scope of the
plumbing. But the part that finds these "annotations", especially
if we can come up with a fast implementation that may be hard to
script, may be a good addition to the plumbing command set.
Thoughts?
--
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