On 07/18, Derrick Stolee wrote: > On 7/17/2018 7:25 PM, Stefan Beller wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 2:09 PM Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> wrote: > > > Signed-off-by: Brandon Williams <bmw...@google.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Since introducing protocol v2 and enabling fetch I've been thinking > > > about what its inverse 'push' would look like. After talking with a > > > number of people I have a longish list of things that could be done to > > > improve push and I think I've been able to distill the core features we > > > want in push v2. > > It would be nice to know which things you want to improve. > > Hopefully we can also get others to chime in with things they don't like > about the existing protocol. What pain points exist, and what can we do to > improve at the transport layer before considering new functionality? > > > > Thankfully (due to the capability system) most of the > > > other features/improvements can be added later with ease. > > > > > > What I've got now is a rough design for a more flexible push, more > > > flexible because it allows for the server to do what it wants with the > > > refs that are pushed and has the ability to communicate back what was > > > done to the client. The main motivation for this is to work around > > > issues when working with Gerrit and other code-review systems where you > > > need to have Change-Ids in the commit messages (now the server can just > > > insert them for you and send back new commits) and you need to push to > > > magic refs to get around various limitations (now a Gerrit server should > > > be able to communicate that pushing to 'master' doesn't update master > > > but instead creates a refs/changes/<id> ref). > > Well Gerrit is our main motivation, but this allows for other workflows as > > well. > > For example Facebook uses hg internally and they have a > > "rebase-on-the-server-after-push" workflow IIRC as pushing to a single repo > > brings up quite some contention. The protocol outlined below would allow > > for such a workflow as well? (This might be an easier sell to the Git > > community as most are not quite familiar with Gerrit) > > I'm also curious how this "change commits on push" would be helpful to other > scenarios. > > Since I'm not familiar with Gerrit: what is preventing you from having a > commit hook that inserts (or requests) a Change-Id when not present? How can > the server identify the Change-Id automatically when it isn't present?
Right now all Gerrit users have a commit hook installed which inserts the Change-Id. The issue is that if you push to gerrit and you don't have Change-ids, the push fails and you're prompted to blindly run a command to install the commit-hook. So if we could just have the server handle this completely then the users of gerrit wouldn't ever need to have a hook installed in the first place. -- Brandon Williams
