Re: [PATCH v2] hooks: propose project configured hooks

From: "Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>
To: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Cc: Albert Cui <albertqcui@gmail.com>,
	Derrick Stolee <stolee@gmail.com>,
	"brian m. carlson" <sandals@crustytoothpaste.net>,
	Albert Cui via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
	git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hooks: propose project configured hooks
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 00:23:27 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <877dldka3k.fsf@evledraar.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <xmqqh7khzwv1.fsf@gitster.g>

On Wed, Apr 07 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> Albert Cui <albertqcui@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Here are the hard lines I draw:
>>>
>>> 1. This should not happen in "git clone" (other than maybe a message
>>>    over stderr that hooks are available to be configured through a
>>>    different command).
>>>
>>> 2. Hooks should not update in "git checkout" (other than a message
>>>    that hooks have updated).
>>>
>>
>> To Ævar's point, maybe it would help to separate the two user bases of
>> project configured hooks.
>> (1) Employee working at BigCorp. They are cloning from a trusted
>> remote on company machines where the company controls what gets
>> installed and how Git is configured. Their motivation is to make
>> changes to their local clone and submit changes to a central
>> repository.
>
> Hmph.
>
> If the assumption is that their configuration is controlled by
> BigCorp when they arrive at their desk, why do you even need any
> change to upstream Git, especially with Emily's "configuration file
> tells Git what hook scripts to run" in sight?

FWIW I've been assuming that this is wanted for BigCorp people who have
devs using vanilla OS's / XCode etc. Having managed laptops with a
managed /etc/gitconfig certainly makes some things easier...

> Wouldn't it be just a matter of the BigCorp installing
> /etc/gitconfig on their BigCorpLinux installations?

Whether you're at BigCorp or not you've got the problem with such a
/etc/gitconfig that it applies to all repos, but someone at BigCorp
might clone both a BigCorp repo (wants custom config, hooks etc.), and
also some random node.js github.com project (should have no such custom
config).

Having a .gitconfig or otherwise making the repo suggest/control the
config/hooks is an elegant way around that issue.

You otherwise need to do something like have config includes apply a
rule to ~/work/, and then hope your users follow your suggestion to
clone repos in the ~/work/ folder.

I think extending config includes to e.g. operate on a glob of the
remote URI was suggested at some point, which would make use-cases like
that easier than they are now, and would be a less invasive change than
what's being discussed here.

But right now we don't have that, so we have a gap there...