[vtk-developers] Auto install git hooks

[Moreland, Kenneth]

I would not particularly care for that solution because


 1.  I don't set up a pushurl, so this solution would not work for me.  I intentionally have a pushable url in a different remote that is not tracked to make it harder for me to inadvertently push to the main repository.
 2.  Even if someone does not have write access to the main repository, and therefore would have no reason to make a pushurl, that does not mean any changes they make will not eventually be pushed to the main repository.  One of the great things about git is that developers outside the inner sanctum can provide commits to those who are and have them pushed in.

In short, a pushurl is not a good indication of whether commits will be made or whether those commits will eventually be pushed to the main repository.

-Ken


On 6/17/10 2:46 PM, "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Clinton Stimpson <clinton at elemtech.com> wrote:

Can you key off the existence of a pushurl?
But I also wonder how this would keep the hooks updated?

We could possibly be clever and do a little regex to check for the git@ form of the url/pushurl. I hadn't considered being that sneaky, but it sound like a viable approach and would ease the dashboard pain.

Marcus

On Thursday, June 17, 2010 02:13:37 pm Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Moreland, Kenneth <kmorel at sandia.gov>wrote:
> >  That's a good point about CMake modifying the source tree, but I think
> >
> > this is one of those cases we should let the rule slide.  In this case we
> > are installing what, IMHO, git should be pulling for us.  Although the
> > Wiki says its optional, it really should be enforced for anyone who
> > makes any commit to any repository.
>
> We came to a similar conclusion in Titan, but I am not sure about letting
> the rule slide. This is new territory though, and it is just my take
>
> > I'm less thrilled about the "error if not installed" option because it
> > still pushes the responsibility back on every developer.  It could also
> > wreck havoc on the dashboards as there will be a delay in getting someone
> > to fix the warning.  But if that is the general consensus, it's way
> > better than what we have now, which is nothing.  If that is the path we
> > choose to
> >
> > follow, then I would hope that the following could be be features:
> >    - CMake be very insistent about installing the hooks.  It should not
> >    be easy to miss or ignore the error.
> >    - The error should give clear instructions on how to install the
> >    hooks.
> >
> >     It's annoying to have to find it in the Wiki every time.
> >
> >    - The check should also look for any updates to the hooks in addition
> >    to just seeing if they are installed.  One of the problems I run into
> >    is that even though I try to be diligent about installing hooks, I
> >    miss changes pushed to the repository.
> >    - The check should turn itself off if not run in a git repository.  A
> >    user who downloaded the source from the web would never be able to
> >    satisfy the requirement.
>
> The checks in Titan have all but the third feature. That would be a
> valuable general addition though, and I think there is some code floating
> around that could help us to accomplish this. It would be good to hear how
> others feel about this, but we should certainly be making these things as
> easy as possible for our developers. I will see what our software process
> type people think - Brad, Dave, Bill?
>
> Marcus
> --
> Marcus D. Hanwell, Ph.D.
> R&D Engineer, Kitware Inc.
> (518) 881-4937


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20100617/3a96f081/attachment.html>