Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Take back control of git-hooks (aka The Great Migration) #343

Closed
bkcsoft opened this issue Dec 3, 2016 · 11 comments
Closed

Take back control of git-hooks (aka The Great Migration) #343

bkcsoft opened this issue Dec 3, 2016 · 11 comments
Assignees
Labels
type/proposal The new feature has not been accepted yet but needs to be discussed first. type/refactoring Existing code has been cleaned up. There should be no new functionality.
Milestone

Comments

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member

bkcsoft commented Dec 3, 2016

  • Gitea version (or commit ref): c8f300b
  • Git version: 2.10.2

This is in no way related to gogs/gogs#1623 ...

Basically I wanna move most of the git-related callbacks into git-hooks, this would however break all existing support for custom git-hooks, but it will make it easier to implement features such as #302 #32 #8 and would fix #218 without actually having to fix it (since the bug is that Gitea have to duplicate the input-data to shove one down gits throat and the other into what is essentially .git/hooks/update 😒 )

thoughts?

--- Want to back this issue? **[Post a bounty on it!](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/39736071-take-back-control-of-git-hooks-aka-the-great-migration?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F47456670&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** We accept bounties via [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F47456670&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).
@bkcsoft bkcsoft changed the title Take back control of git-hooks Take back control of git-hooks (aka The Great Migration) Dec 3, 2016
@bkcsoft bkcsoft added type/proposal The new feature has not been accepted yet but needs to be discussed first. type/refactoring Existing code has been cleaned up. There should be no new functionality. issue/needs-feedback For bugs, we need more details. For features, the feature must be described in more detail labels Dec 3, 2016
@tboerger
Copy link
Member

tboerger commented Dec 3, 2016

I would also take the control of the hooks but that doesn't directly solve the mentioned issues :)

@strk
Copy link
Member

strk commented Dec 3, 2016 via email

@tboerger
Copy link
Member

tboerger commented Dec 3, 2016

This is intended for 2.0.0 where breaking changes will be totally fine.

@tboerger tboerger added this to the 2.x.x milestone Dec 4, 2016
@tboerger
Copy link
Member

tboerger commented Dec 4, 2016

As this will introduce real breaking changes I have created and assigned the 2.x.x milestone.

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member Author

bkcsoft commented Dec 5, 2016

@strk possible migrations involve calling user provided hooks at the end of giteas hooks, which should be fairly easy to make a migration for 🙂

@tboerger it says "make it easier to implement" not "fix" 😛 the only thing it will automagically fix is #218 which only exists as a bug since we're not using git-hooks for what git-hooks was created for 😆

@adymitruk
Copy link

adymitruk commented Jan 30, 2017

what's the workaround for getting a custom update hook? Add this to the repos' update hooks?

if [ -e hooks/update.custom ]; then bash hooks/update.custom "$@"; fi || exit
# the regular gitea line

@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Feb 5, 2017

I don't think this should be a v2.x.x issue. It should be fixed ASAP.

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member Author

bkcsoft commented Feb 6, 2017

@lunny potential breakage, loads of migrations and backwards compatibility. In my book it belongs in a major-release 🙂

@tboerger
Copy link
Member

tboerger commented Feb 9, 2017

Somebody can build a POC than we can see if it should work without breaking installations or not :)

@bkcsoft
Copy link
Member Author

bkcsoft commented Feb 14, 2017

I'll have a look at cherry-picking and correcting a few things from gogs/gogs@039dc33 during the weekend 🙂

@bkcsoft bkcsoft self-assigned this Feb 14, 2017
@lunny lunny modified the milestones: 1.1.0, 2.x.x Feb 22, 2017
@lunny lunny removed the issue/needs-feedback For bugs, we need more details. For features, the feature must be described in more detail label Feb 22, 2017
@lunny
Copy link
Member

lunny commented Feb 23, 2017

resolved by #1006

@lunny lunny closed this as completed Feb 23, 2017
@go-gitea go-gitea locked and limited conversation to collaborators Nov 23, 2020
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
type/proposal The new feature has not been accepted yet but needs to be discussed first. type/refactoring Existing code has been cleaned up. There should be no new functionality.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants