Right! Can you add a comment to the document review? The other two hooks were good (email, update umbrella), so I think we're set. Cheers, Renato On 20 Jul 2016 12:48 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:> I have already tested protected branches on GitHub successfully and found > it allowed exactly the pushes that were correct -- they must all have the > current HEAD as an ancestor, and so they always move the repo forward > without dropping already pushed patches. > > At most, it would might make sense to have some client-side scripts we > encourage users to install that check for accidental pushes of massive > series of patches in a single go and warn them about it. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:44 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> That is what I'm proposing, and Tim is helping us test. We should reach a >> solution quickly, and once we do, I'll update the document. >> >> Feel free to try his repo, I'll only try tomorrow. If you guys come up >> with a clear flow before that, let me know. >> >> Cheers, >> Renato >> >> On 20 Jul 2016 12:36 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I've not read all of the github threads, so sorry if this has been >>> brought up, but... >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:27 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < >>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> >>>> 1. Pre-commit hooks, avoiding forced pushes / re-order >>>> >>>> GitHub doesn't support server hooks due to security concerns. >>>> >>> >>> GitHub does support protected branches which prevent forced pushes. I've >>> even played with them in the llvm GitHub project and they work as expected. >>> It should give the exact workflow that I think LLVM devs are used to with >>> Subversion of post-commit review. >>> >>> -Chandler >>> >>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/5d3181ee/attachment.html>
I can try to find time; honestly haven't had the spare time recently to track or contributed significantly to the github thing, I just wanted to try and avoid the search for a complex solution if the simple one is available and sufficient. On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:52 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:> Right! Can you add a comment to the document review? > > The other two hooks were good (email, update umbrella), so I think we're > set. > > Cheers, > Renato > > On 20 Jul 2016 12:48 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > >> I have already tested protected branches on GitHub successfully and found >> it allowed exactly the pushes that were correct -- they must all have the >> current HEAD as an ancestor, and so they always move the repo forward >> without dropping already pushed patches. >> >> At most, it would might make sense to have some client-side scripts we >> encourage users to install that check for accidental pushes of massive >> series of patches in a single go and warn them about it. >> >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:44 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> wrote: >> >>> That is what I'm proposing, and Tim is helping us test. We should reach >>> a solution quickly, and once we do, I'll update the document. >>> >>> Feel free to try his repo, I'll only try tomorrow. If you guys come up >>> with a clear flow before that, let me know. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Renato >>> >>> On 20 Jul 2016 12:36 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I've not read all of the github threads, so sorry if this has been >>>> brought up, but... >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:27 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 1. Pre-commit hooks, avoiding forced pushes / re-order >>>>> >>>>> GitHub doesn't support server hooks due to security concerns. >>>>> >>>> >>>> GitHub does support protected branches which prevent forced pushes. >>>> I've even played with them in the llvm GitHub project and they work as >>>> expected. It should give the exact workflow that I think LLVM devs are used >>>> to with Subversion of post-commit review. >>>> >>>> -Chandler >>>> >>>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160719/70e71d55/attachment.html>
We're converging to the three simplest solutions. :-) Just cut & pasting what you said on the review would be of great help. Cheers, Renato On 20 Jul 2016 12:54 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> wrote:> I can try to find time; honestly haven't had the spare time recently to > track or contributed significantly to the github thing, I just wanted to > try and avoid the search for a complex solution if the simple one is > available and sufficient. > > On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:52 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> Right! Can you add a comment to the document review? >> >> The other two hooks were good (email, update umbrella), so I think we're >> set. >> >> Cheers, >> Renato >> >> On 20 Jul 2016 12:48 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I have already tested protected branches on GitHub successfully and >>> found it allowed exactly the pushes that were correct -- they must all have >>> the current HEAD as an ancestor, and so they always move the repo forward >>> without dropping already pushed patches. >>> >>> At most, it would might make sense to have some client-side scripts we >>> encourage users to install that check for accidental pushes of massive >>> series of patches in a single go and warn them about it. >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 4:44 PM Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> That is what I'm proposing, and Tim is helping us test. We should reach >>>> a solution quickly, and once we do, I'll update the document. >>>> >>>> Feel free to try his repo, I'll only try tomorrow. If you guys come up >>>> with a clear flow before that, let me know. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> Renato >>>> >>>> On 20 Jul 2016 12:36 a.m., "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've not read all of the github threads, so sorry if this has been >>>>> brought up, but... >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 1:27 PM Renato Golin via llvm-dev < >>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 1. Pre-commit hooks, avoiding forced pushes / re-order >>>>>> >>>>>> GitHub doesn't support server hooks due to security concerns. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> GitHub does support protected branches which prevent forced pushes. >>>>> I've even played with them in the llvm GitHub project and they work as >>>>> expected. It should give the exact workflow that I think LLVM devs are used >>>>> to with Subversion of post-commit review. >>>>> >>>>> -Chandler >>>>> >>>>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160720/beea0c5d/attachment.html>