| 1 |
On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Alex Xu <alex_y_xu@×××××.ca> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Seems simple enough, as long as `repoman scan` runs quickly. |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
This is the key, because if a commit happens anywhere in your process, |
| 6 |
your push will fail. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
At first I thought you were suggesting a server-side hook. This |
| 9 |
essentially has the same problem, though. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Manually running repoman may be the cleanest solution. By all means |
| 12 |
people are welcome to use hooks if they're afraid they'll forget. |
| 13 |
However, if you run repoman and it is fine, then you just need to |
| 14 |
repeat pull/rebase, push until you get though. Sure, there is a |
| 15 |
slight risk something might get missed, but that risk is lower than it |
| 16 |
is with cvs currently (since the git pull before your repoman check |
| 17 |
updated the entire repository, and not just the current directory - I |
| 18 |
doubt anybody does a cvs update on the whole repository before every |
| 19 |
change as it is so much more expensive). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I think our policy should emphasize the what over the how. The what |
| 22 |
is we want commits that are free from stupid mistakes. The how is |
| 23 |
repoman. We'll offer suggested workflows, and then it is up to the |
| 24 |
committer to be responsible. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Rich |
Archives