Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
Pencil, Pencil, and Pencil
Dividing the Linux desktop
LWN.net Weekly Edition for June 13, 2013
A report from pgCon 2013
Little things that matter in language design
A proposed Subversion vision and roadmap
Posted Apr 3, 2010 22:10 UTC (Sat) by joey (subscriber, #328)
But this is limited to accepting the whole set of changes, or rejecting
everything. Well, I suppose you could have the hook fail and then go commit
the subset of changes that were acceptable. In theory. In practice, if the
user has made many changes, their whole push could fail due to any change
the hook dislikes, and they would then most likely need to rewrite their
history to get a clean set of changes that the hook accepts.
There is another infelicity if the user pushes using git-daemon. (Ie, a
purely anonymous push.) The daemon uses a protocol that did not, last I
checked, allow any error messages printed by the hook to be displayed to
the user. So it can be hard to tell why your push was rejected.
Sorry for the TMI.
Posted Apr 3, 2010 22:14 UTC (Sat) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
Posted Apr 3, 2010 22:13 UTC (Sat) by engla (guest, #47454)
Selective read access
Posted Apr 4, 2010 7:05 UTC (Sun) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
Granted that linking the stuff together via submodules could be easier, but then setting up a SVN repo to do the path-based stuff isn't exactly child's play either.
Posted Apr 4, 2010 7:36 UTC (Sun) by ikm (subscriber, #493)
It's not the same thing. When you have just one repository, a lot of things are simpler, like e.g. tagging, browsing history etc. When you have multiple repositories, you have to repeat each operation for each of them. Or, imagine e.g. you had your repository for some time, and then suddenly you need to grant read/write access to just a part of it to someone. With svn, this is simple. With git, well, impossible.
> setting up a SVN repo to do the path-based stuff isn't exactly child's play either
I disagree. Actually, it is.
p.s. I don't understand the need to defend GIT. Yes, it's awesome, and no, it's not universal. Why not just accept that?
Posted Apr 4, 2010 8:30 UTC (Sun) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
My real rationale for writing here is that I _really_ dislike non-distributed VC systems, for the simple reason that I can't do my own version-controlled changes without either asking for commit access or re-importing the stuff into my own VCS. "git svn" to the rescue
Granted that giving partial r/w access to somebody after the fact may not be particularly easy with git, but give me a few hours and I'll write a script to convert a subtree into a git submodule, with a copy of the relevant part of the commit history. Problem (mostly) solved.
Posted Apr 4, 2010 19:27 UTC (Sun) by engla (guest, #47454)
Posted Apr 5, 2010 17:38 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds