Junio C Hamano <[email protected]> wrote: > [email protected] (Stefan Haller) writes: > > > I guess the next best solution would be to also have a pre-push hook > > that performs the same checks again, just in case the bad code managed > > to get past the pre-commit hook for some reason or other. This feels > > very redundant, but I guess it would work well. > > I'd say pre-receive would be the most sensible place to check things > like this.
Yes, I totally agree, and we used to have this setup when we were still hosting our code in-house; with pre-receive doing the authorative checks, and pre-commit being optional as a convenience for developers, as you say. Now we have moved most of our code to github, and you can't have pre-receive hooks there, as far as I can tell. (I should have mentioned that, sorry.) To make up for that, we have put considerable effort into ensuring that everyone on the team has up-to-date hooks locally, by installing them automatically as part of our build system infrastructure. In that light, do you agree that a pre-push hook is the best we can do now to plug this hole? -- Stefan Haller Berlin, Germany http://www.haller-berlin.de/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
