Hi Peff & Junio, On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Jeff King wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2016 at 09:57:52AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > > I wonder if we already have a good mechanism to allow a project and > > its participants (say, "me") to declare "in this project, pathnames > > must conform to this rule" and help them avoid creating a tree that > > violates the rule customized to their project. > > > > I guess "write_index_as_tree()" would be one of the central places to > > hook into and that covers an individual contributor or a patch applier > > who ends up adding offending paths to the project, as well as a merge > > made in response to a pull request (unless it is a fast-forward) > > [*1*]. The pre-receive hook can also be used to inspect and reject an > > attempt to push an offending tree into the history. FWIW I think it should be at a different level. See below for more details. > > Such a mechanism would allow a project that wants participation by > > folks with case insensitive filesystems to ensure that they do not > > create a directory that has both xt_TCPMSS.h and xt_tcpmss.h at the > > same time, for example, but the mechanism needs to allow visibility > > into more than just a single path when the custom check is made (e.g. > > a hook run in "write_index_as_tree()" can see all entries in the index > > to make the decision; if we were to also hook into "add_to_index()", > > the hook must be able to see other entries in the index to which the > > new entry is being added). > > I am not convinced this mechanism needs to be built into git. Because it > happens to be about filenames, git at least has a hope of making sense > of the various project rules. Both of you gentle people may recall a conversation in December 2014 when we scrambled to plug a hole where maliciously-chosen file names would have allowed to wreak havoc with a local Git repository's config (among other things). We did plug it, but not before I proposed to exclude many more file names than just maliciously-chosen ones. For example, I wanted to exclude all file names that are illegal on Windows when core.protectNTFS was set to true. If we were to implement this "let's help cross-platform projects" functionality, it would be at that same level. However, I have to agree with Junio that Git is *not* targeting *all* platforms. Conversely, any solution we implement to try to be helpful by pointing out unportable file names will certainly fall short of *some* project's requirement. Given that we have no shortage of problems to solve, I would vote for addressing portability only as far as Git and its intended target platforms are concerned. Ciao, Dscho -- 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