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=-3.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no 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 BAEE0C48BDF for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:32:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9719361284 for ; Fri, 18 Jun 2021 22:32:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S234981AbhFRWfA convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:35:00 -0400 Received: from elephants.elehost.com ([216.66.27.132]:34112 "EHLO elephants.elehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230268AbhFRWfA (ORCPT ); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:35:00 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at elehost.com Received: from gnash (cpe00fc8d49d843-cm00fc8d49d840.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com [173.33.197.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by elephants.elehost.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 15IMWl7F088843 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:32:47 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from rsbecker@nexbridge.com) From: "Randall S. Becker" To: "'Jonathan Tan'" , Cc: References: <20210618215848.794617-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> In-Reply-To: <20210618215848.794617-1-jonathantanmy@google.com> Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 0/2] MVP implementation of remote-suggested hooks Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 18:32:41 -0400 Message-ID: <020d01d76491$dcfe7c60$96fb7520$@nexbridge.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 16.0 Thread-Index: AQLGDmhaeVA3rjEQY3rBzjnq2zAK/wGN6/M9qTCWnaA= Content-Language: en-ca 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? 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