By moving several declarations to setup.h, the previous patch made it
possible to remove the include of cache.h in several source files. Do
so.
Signed-off-by: Elijah Newren <newren@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
It's arguably more correct to say "[<option>...]" than either of these
forms, but the vast majority of our documentation uses the
"[<options>]" form to indicate an arbitrary number of options, let's
do the same in these cases, which were the odd ones out.
In the case of "mv" and "sparse-checkout" let's add the missing "[]"
to indicate that these are optional.
In the case of "t/helper/test-proc-receive.c" there is no *.txt
version, making it the only hunk in this commit that's not a "doc txt
& -h consistency" change.
Signed-off-by: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
In the verison negotiation phase between "receive-pack" and
"proc-receive", "proc-receive" can send an empty flush-pkt to end the
negotiation and use default version 0. Capabilities (such as
"push-options") are not supported in version 0.
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Johannes found a flaky hang in `t5411/test-0013-bad-protocol.sh` in the
osx-clang job of the CI/PR builds, and ran into an issue when using
the `--stress` option with the following error messages:
fatal: unable to write flush packet: Broken pipe
send-pack: unexpected disconnect while reading sideband packet
fatal: the remote end hung up unexpectedly
In this test case, the "proc-receive" hook sends an error message and
dies earlier. While "receive-pack" on the other side of the pipe
should forward the error message of the "proc-receive" hook to the
client side, but it fails to do so. This is because "receive-pack"
uses `packet_write_fmt()` and `packet_flush()` to write pkt-line
message to "proc-receive" hook, and these functions die immediately
when pipe is broken. Using "gently" forms for these functions will get
more predicable output.
Add more "--die-*" options to test helper to test different stages of
the protocol between "receive-pack" and "proc-receive" hook.
Reported-by: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
Suggested-by: Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Git calls an internal `execute_commands` function to handle commands
sent from client to `git-receive-pack`. Regardless of what references
the user pushes, git creates or updates the corresponding references if
the user has write-permission. A contributor who has no
write-permission, cannot push to the repository directly. So, the
contributor has to write commits to an alternate location, and sends
pull request by emails or by other ways. We call this workflow as a
distributed workflow.
It would be more convenient to work in a centralized workflow like what
Gerrit provided for some cases. For example, a read-only user who
cannot push to a branch directly can run the following `git push`
command to push commits to a pseudo reference (has a prefix "refs/for/",
not "refs/heads/") to create a code review.
git push origin \
HEAD:refs/for/<branch-name>/<session>
The `<branch-name>` in the above example can be as simple as "master",
or a more complicated branch name like "foo/bar". The `<session>` in
the above example command can be the local branch name of the client
side, such as "my/topic".
We cannot implement a centralized workflow elegantly by using
"pre-receive" + "post-receive", because Git will call the internal
function "execute_commands" to create references (even the special
pseudo reference) between these two hooks. Even though we can delete
the temporarily created pseudo reference via the "post-receive" hook,
having a temporary reference is not safe for concurrent pushes.
So, add a filter and a new handler to support this kind of workflow.
The filter will check the prefix of the reference name, and if the
command has a special reference name, the filter will turn a specific
field (`run_proc_receive`) on for the command. Commands with this filed
turned on will be executed by a new handler (a hook named
"proc-receive") instead of the internal `execute_commands` function.
We can use this "proc-receive" command to create pull requests or send
emails for code review.
Suggested by Junio, this "proc-receive" hook reads the commands,
push-options (optional), and send result using a protocol in pkt-line
format. In the following example, the letter "S" stands for
"receive-pack" and letter "H" stands for the hook.
# Version and features negotiation.
S: PKT-LINE(version=1\0push-options atomic...)
S: flush-pkt
H: PKT-LINE(version=1\0push-options...)
H: flush-pkt
# Send commands from server to the hook.
S: PKT-LINE(<old-oid> <new-oid> <ref>)
S: ... ...
S: flush-pkt
# Send push-options only if the 'push-options' feature is enabled.
S: PKT-LINE(push-option)
S: ... ...
S: flush-pkt
# Receive result from the hook.
# OK, run this command successfully.
H: PKT-LINE(ok <ref>)
# NO, I reject it.
H: PKT-LINE(ng <ref> <reason>)
# Fall through, let 'receive-pack' to execute it.
H: PKT-LINE(ok <ref>)
H: PKT-LINE(option fall-through)
# OK, but has an alternate reference. The alternate reference name
# and other status can be given in options
H: PKT-LINE(ok <ref>)
H: PKT-LINE(option refname <refname>)
H: PKT-LINE(option old-oid <old-oid>)
H: PKT-LINE(option new-oid <new-oid>)
H: PKT-LINE(option forced-update)
H: ... ...
H: flush-pkt
After receiving a command, the hook will execute the command, and may
create/update different reference. For example, a command for a pseudo
reference "refs/for/master/topic" may create/update different reference
such as "refs/pull/123/head". The alternate reference name and other
status are given in option lines.
The list of commands returned from "proc-receive" will replace the
relevant commands that are sent from user to "receive-pack", and
"receive-pack" will continue to run the "execute_commands" function and
other routines. Finally, the result of the execution of these commands
will be reported to end user.
The reporting function from "receive-pack" to "send-pack" will be
extended in latter commit just like what the "proc-receive" hook reports
to "receive-pack".
Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <zhiyou.jx@alibaba-inc.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
