On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:46 PM Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 07/18, Duy Nguyen wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 7:13 PM Brandon Williams <bmwill@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > What I've got now is a rough design for a more flexible push, more > > > > > > flexible because it allows for the server to do what it wants with the > > > > > > refs that are pushed and has the ability to communicate back what was > > > > > > done to the client. The main motivation for this is to work around > > > > > > issues when working with Gerrit and other code-review systems where you > > > > > > need to have Change-Ids in the commit messages (now the server can just > > > > > > insert them for you and send back new commits) and you need to push to > > > > > > magic refs to get around various limitations (now a Gerrit server should > > > > > > be able to communicate that pushing to 'master' doesn't update master > > > > > > but instead creates a refs/changes/<id> ref). > > > > > Well Gerrit is our main motivation, but this allows for other workflows as well. > > > > > For example Facebook uses hg internally and they have a > > > > > "rebase-on-the-server-after-push" workflow IIRC as pushing to a single repo > > > > > brings up quite some contention. The protocol outlined below would allow > > > > > for such a workflow as well? (This might be an easier sell to the Git > > > > > community as most are not quite familiar with Gerrit) > > > > > > > > I'm also curious how this "change commits on push" would be helpful to other > > > > scenarios. > > > > > > > > Since I'm not familiar with Gerrit: what is preventing you from having a > > > > commit hook that inserts (or requests) a Change-Id when not present? How can > > > > the server identify the Change-Id automatically when it isn't present? > > > > > > Right now all Gerrit users have a commit hook installed which inserts > > > the Change-Id. The issue is that if you push to gerrit and you don't > > > have Change-ids, the push fails and you're prompted to blindly run a > > > command to install the commit-hook. So if we could just have the server > > > handle this completely then the users of gerrit wouldn't ever need to > > > have a hook installed in the first place. > > > > I don't trust the server side to rewrite commits for me. And this is > > That's a fair point. Though I think there are a number of projects > where this would be very beneficial for contributors. The main reason > for wanting a feature like this is to make the UX easier for Gerrit > users (Having server insert change ids as well as potentially getting > rid of the weird HEAD:refs/for/master syntax you need to push for > review). Also, if you don't control a server yourself, then who ever > controls it can do what it wants with the objects/ref-updates you send > them. Of course even if they rewrite history that doesn't mean your > local copy needs to mimic those changes if you don't want them too. So > even if we move forward with a design like this, there would need to be > some config option to actually accept and apply the changes a server > makes and sends back to you. This is the main pain point for me. I almost wrote a follow mail along the line of "having said that, if we can be transparent what the changes are or have some protection at client side against "dangerous" changes like tree/blob/commit-header replacement then it's probably ok". There's also other things like signing which will not work well with remote updates like this. I guess you can cross it out as "not supported" after consideration though. > This RFC doesn't actually address those > sorts of UX implications because I expect those are things which can be > added and tweaked at some point in the future. I'm just trying to build > the foundation for such changes. Speaking of UX, gerrit and this server-side ref-update. My experience with average gerrit users is they tend to stick to a very basic set of commands and if this is not handled well, you just replace the one-time pain of installing hooks with a new one that happens much more often, potentially more confusing too. > > basically rewriting history (e.g. I can push multiple commits to > > gerrit if I remember correctly; if they all don't have change-id, then > > the history must be rewritten for change-id to be inserted). Don't we > > already have "plans" to push config from server to client? There's > > I know there has been talk about this, but I don't know any of any > current proposals or work being done in this area. As far as I know, nobody has worked on it. You're welcome to start of course ;-) -- Duy
