On Mon, Aug 27, 2007 at 17:07:34 +0000, Sergio Callegari wrote: > David Kastrup <dak <at> gnu.org> writes: > > > > > Sergio Callegari <scallegari <at> arces.unibo.it> writes: > > > > > Couldn't all this directory/ownership/permission tracing be easily > > > done by using hooks? E.g. Having a pre-status and pre-commit hook > > > one could fire up a program/script to collect all the extra info he > > > wants to trace and store it somewhere (typically in some traced > > > file). The other way round one could have a post-checkout hook and > > > he could arrange it to fire up some program to look into the > > > extra-info file to set up all the meta-data he wants. > > > > > > This would be very flexible and would permit to manage absolutely > > > /any/ kind of the metadata leaving absolute freedom about how to do > > > so. > > > > > > Am I missing something here? > > > > Merging. > > > > Sorry, maybe I am really missing something, since merging does not look to me > as an issue. > > Why cannot git simply do the merging in the working tree as it normally > does, including merging of the traced metadata file generated by the metadata > helpers invoked via the hooks? > Only, again more hooks are needed and likely a post-merge hook, so that at > the end of the merge, the metadata can be applied. > > Only, to have things going on smoothly, one should be so wise to assure that > the metadata helpers save metadata as nice, sorted text files in order to > minimize the burden of manual intervention if there are conflicts in > metadata merging. The post-checkout (no need for post-merge -- after in-index merge is done, the files are checked out to worktree, so post-checkout would run anyway) could actually apply any custom merge strategy required to avoid/clean up spurious conflicts in the metadata file (eg. adding two files that go after each other would be a textual conflict). The relevant versions are stored in index stages at that point. > BTW. Having a post-checkout hook could also help getting rid of unwanted > empty directories, couldn't it? Probably not. I would imagine it would actually only run for the files being checked out -- and there is nothing checked out in empty directories. (Well, it would run once or once per directory with list of checked out files on standard input). -- Jan 'Bulb' Hudec <bulb@xxxxxx>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
