From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C953CC48BE5 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC197611BD for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 18:31:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231856AbhFUSd3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:33:29 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:57392 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231176AbhFUSd2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 14:33:28 -0400 Received: from mail-pg1-x549.google.com (mail-pg1-x549.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::549]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6508EC061574 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:31:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pg1-x549.google.com with SMTP id n15-20020a65488f0000b02902221a44f1d1so5620141pgs.7 for ; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:31:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:subject:from:to :cc; bh=zwgGKepO05GnTuSo9LMb6Xl1QtneHpqPsMw6CK7c39Y=; b=DKCWmBAaF791uU0T0y5gViDKI1MdoPi36c6+9MxdPCHVqSWF4HPp0w450yipr5q5cg W6azfwD24VbnVP657md3avoqcrElIbi1Aok2A31900G6NqBknchQ47nnb2/u9Le4ygD2 GXQfovnTsNUARfBVTm6EJWM4peNntjdQ9Xw/5SUNiSnYeU6n9h3iBpT8srwLGl5a81oD 0+AKkEm87EV3tj3BW4mrILyFfdNPyYsPWZQEpcoQOH3DJ5GhimyZialBhV/cT4qURmBl ozStHNoCFp2lAk9nVXvPIHd5KAdfLnpN1KRRsYtJ5N6ly50OB88sVid9Gh+/TURI/bBH EiVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :references:subject:from:to:cc; bh=zwgGKepO05GnTuSo9LMb6Xl1QtneHpqPsMw6CK7c39Y=; b=ZXRSWvXxCnBpiid0F7H1J9xtTWumB0ibzzwOmeZMaMt1oejhPB9tlKc6ovzcFKDDEH PX2eBOICSeCTr/M3aCanSY9AIOs8kSoO2Mbq2ezJxDRWIoi7eNDtFvp8kArOg8hfdscx LlhFg0ucm0u5ofZYE4DXuJuupd4KDjBAcMtXih1qhoz2v5nyFL+I2Ru0BIWmqPRMd21q zlHYGi3t0AsdfWle+idN722Tz1tBVTtBR2R/kplfWmerPL9TVPC2piHonzcGCoa4r59K //STmtKWkWuay4MR9yqGM/phcH5N/716TA4+O+ZVttgJ69HTWNW8jSs/WTkU0ZUlQjx8 13iQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531U3zMW4r6JGF0vKrGp58rQSruI6YdYBtGgz01NWbIfs5Atmozc QLzg6PccyxOaq2CPCaX8dTb5twd/0dYA51kqxEex X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxput7mXI5cmAi+2taSw9GBq4WjKiIBWGZg8UhxR2JK4c7ne3m/Hbi+0o6BjsBrix9gqq0gSl5Zz1XpKD8mJQbK X-Received: from twelve4.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:10:24:72f4:c0a8:437a]) (user=jonathantanmy job=sendgmr) by 2002:a17:902:8601:b029:11c:4b4:e967 with SMTP id f1-20020a1709028601b029011c04b4e967mr19325708plo.75.1624300273886; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:31:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 11:31:09 -0700 In-Reply-To: <020d01d764916fb7520nexbridge.com> Message-Id: <20210621183109.1165775-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 References: <020d01d764916fb7520nexbridge.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.32.0.288.g62a8d224e6-goog Subject: Re: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/2] MVP implementation of remote-suggested hooks From: Jonathan Tan To: rsbecker@nexbridge.com Cc: jonathantanmy@google.com, emilyshaffer@google.com, git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org > On June 18, 2021 5:59 PM, Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 16, 2021 at 04:31:47PM -0700, Jonathan Tan wrote: > >> > > >> > I have had to make several design choices (which I will discuss > >> > later), but now with this implementation, the following workflow is possible: > >> > > >> > 1. The remote repo administrator creates a new branch > >> > "refs/heads/suggested-hooks" pointing to a commit that has all the > >> > hooks that the administrator wants to suggest. The hooks are > >> > directly referenced by the commit tree (i.e. they are in the "/" > >> > directory). > >> > >> I don't really like that this is in the same namespace as branches > >> users could create themselves. Hm, I think for 'git maintenance' > >> prefetching we put those refs in some special namespace, right? Can we > >> do something similar in this case? Would that prevent us from treating > >> that ref like a normal branch? > > > >Do you mean that the server should put it in a different place, the client should put it in a different place, or both? > > This brings up a very awkward question: How are enterprise git servers going > to deal with this? What do you mean by "this"? > I do not see the standard Pull Request mechanism available in GitHub handing > placing hooks in different places during a merge operation. Or will this > entire concept be omitted from PR? > > It seems like changes to hooks have to be managed in a similar way to > standard managed files rather than as exceptions. > > -Randall The plan in this RFC is to manage the changes in hooks just like any other branch - to update a hook, you can make a PR against refs/heads/suggested-hooks.