52 Коммитов

Автор	SHA1	Сообщение	Дата
Gerrit Pape	5850cb645d	rename contrib/hooks/post-receieve-email to contrib/hooks/post-receive-email. ... $ git grep post-receieve-email $ git grep post-receive-email templates/hooks--post-receive:#. /usr/share/doc/git-core/contrib/hooks/post-receive-email $ Signed-off-by: Gerrit Pape <pape@smarden.org> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	2007-04-04 22:17:59 -07:00
Andy Parkins	4557e0de5b	Reimplement emailing part of hooks--update in contrib/hooks/post-receive-email ... The update hook is no longer the correct place to generate emails; there is now the hooks/post-receive script which is run automatically after a ref has been updated. This patch is to make use of that new location, and to address some faults in the old update hook. The primary problem in the conversion was that in the update hook, the ref has not actually been changed, but is about to be. In the post-receive hook the ref has already been updated. That meant that where we previously had lines like: git rev-list --not --all would now give the wrong list because "--all" in the post-receive hook includes the ref that we are making the email for. This made it more difficult to show only the new revisions added by this update. The solution is not pretty; however it does work and doesn't need any changes to git-rev-list itself. It also fixes (more accurately: reduces the likelihood of) a nasty race when another update occurs while this script is running. The solution, in short, looks like this (see the source code for a longer explanation) git rev-parse --not --all | grep -v $(git rev-parse $refname) | git rev-list --pretty --stdin $oldrev..$newrev This uses git-rev-parse followed by grep to filter out the revision of the ref in question before it gets to rev-list and inhibits the output of itself. By using $(git rev-parse $revname) rather than $newrev as the filter, it also takes care of the situation where another update to the same ref has been made since $refname was $newrev. The second problem that is addressed is that of tags inhibiting the correct output of an update email. Consider this, with somebranch and sometag pointing at the same revision: git push origin somebranch git push origin sometag That would work fine; the push of the branch would generate an email containing all the new commits introduced by the update, then the push of the tag would generate the shortlog formatted tag email. Now consider: git push origin sometag git push origin somebranch When some branch comes to run its "--not --all" line, it will find sometag, and filter those commits from the email - leaving nothing. That meant that those commits would not show (in full) on any email. The fix is to not use "--all", and instead use "--branches" in the git-rev-parse command. Other changes * Lose the monstrous one-giant-script layout and put things in easy to digest functions. This makes it much easier to find the place you need to change if you wanted to customise the output. I've also tried to write more verbose comments for the same reason. The hook script is big, mainly because of all the different cases that it has to handle, so being easy to navigate is important. * All uses of "git-command" changed to "git command", to cope better if a user decided not to install all the hard links to git; * Cleaned up some of the English in the email * The fact that the receive hook makes the ref available also allows me to use Shawn Pearce's fantastic suggestion that an annotated tag can be parsed with git-for-each-ref. This removes the potentially non-portable use of "<<<" heredocs and the nasty messing around with "date" to convert numbers of seconds UTC to a real date * Deletions are now caught and notified (briefly) * To help with debugging, I've retained the command line mode from the update hook; but made it so that the output is not emailed, it's just printed to the screen. This could then be redirected if the user wanted * Removed the "Hello" from the beginning of the email - it's just noise, and no one seriously has their day made happier by "friendly" programs * The fact that it doesn't rely on repository state as an indicator any more means that it's far more stable in its output; hopefully the same arguments will always generate the same email - even if the repository changes in the future. This means you can easily recreate an email should you want to. * Included Jim Meyering's envelope sender option for the sendmail call * The hook is now so big that it was inappropriate to copy it to every repository by keeping it in the templates directory. Instead, I've put a comment saying to look in contrib/hooks, and given an example of calling the script from that template hook. The advantage of calling the script residing at some fixed location is that if a future package of git included a bug fixed version of the script, that would be picked up automatically, and the user would not have to notice and manually copy the new hook to every repository that uses it. Signed-off-by: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>	2007-03-31 01:21:18 -07:00