[vtk-developers] Auto install git hooks

[pat marion]

I think it should be a regular message and not a SEND_ERROR though.  There
are lots of ways that people automate builds besides CTest.

Pat

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 4:27 PM, Marcus D. Hanwell <
marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:

> So, I was thinking about this over the weekend, and talked to Brad King.
> There is an environment variable that is set by CTest when it drives the
> build. I can check if that variable is defined, and know that CTest is
> driving the build.
>
> If I did that then when a user first configures VTK CMake will print an
> error with copy/paste instructions to check out the local hooks (along with
> a link to the wiki). They can set a CMake cache variable to ignore the hooks
> to get past it if they wish. If you are not in a git checkout the whole
> process is skipped.
>
> If CTest invoked the configure then the environment variable is set, and so
> the error is not raised - negating the need to set a cache variable on all
> of the dashboard machines. The only assumption is that CTest is driving the
> build, which I think is reasonable. I tested the logic out in Titan and it
> looks good.
>
> Does this cover all of your requirements reasonably? I will be checking
> this code into Titan as I think it is an improvement on what we had there
> too. I would be happy to check the relevant portion into VTK.
>
> Marcus
>
> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Moreland, Kenneth <kmorel at sandia.gov>wrote:
>>
>>
>> In short, a pushurl is not a good indication of whether commits will be
>> made or whether those commits will eventually be pushed to the main
>> repository.
>>
>> -Ken
>>
>>
>>
>> On 6/17/10 2:46 PM, "Marcus D. Hanwell" <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:40 PM, Clinton Stimpson <clinton at elemtech.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Can you key off the existence of a pushurl?
>> But I also wonder how this would keep the hooks updated?
>>
>>
>> We could possibly be clever and do a little regex to check for the git at form of the url/pushurl. I hadn't considered being that sneaky, but it sound
>> like a viable approach and would ease the dashboard pain.
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 17, 2010 02:13:37 pm Marcus D. Hanwell wrote:
>> > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Moreland, Kenneth <
>> kmorel at sandia.gov>wrote:
>> > >  That’s a good point about CMake modifying the source tree, but I
>> think
>> > >
>> > > this is one of those cases we should let the rule slide.  In this case
>> we
>> > > are installing what, IMHO, git should be pulling for us.  Although the
>> > > Wiki says its optional, it really should be enforced for anyone who
>> > > makes any commit to any repository.
>> >
>> > We came to a similar conclusion in Titan, but I am not sure about
>> letting
>> > the rule slide. This is new territory though, and it is just my take
>> >
>> > > I’m less thrilled about the “error if not installed” option because it
>> > > still pushes the responsibility back on every developer.  It could
>> also
>> > > wreck havoc on the dashboards as there will be a delay in getting
>> someone
>> > > to fix the warning.  But if that is the general consensus, it’s way
>> > > better than what we have now, which is nothing.  If that is the path
>> we
>> > > choose to
>> > >
>> > > follow, then I would hope that the following could be be features:
>> > >    - CMake be very insistent about installing the hooks.  It should
>> not
>> > >    be easy to miss or ignore the error.
>> > >    - The error should give clear instructions on how to install the
>> > >    hooks.
>> > >
>> > >     It’s annoying to have to find it in the Wiki every time.
>> > >
>> > >    - The check should also look for any updates to the hooks in
>> addition
>> > >    to just seeing if they are installed.  One of the problems I run
>> into
>> > >    is that even though I try to be diligent about installing hooks, I
>> > >    miss changes pushed to the repository.
>> > >    - The check should turn itself off if not run in a git repository.
>>  A
>> > >    user who downloaded the source from the web would never be able to
>> > >    satisfy the requirement.
>> >
>> > The checks in Titan have all but the third feature. That would be a
>> > valuable general addition though, and I think there is some code
>> floating
>> > around that could help us to accomplish this. It would be good to hear
>> how
>> > others feel about this, but we should certainly be making these things
>> as
>> > easy as possible for our developers. I will see what our software
>> process
>> > type people think - Brad, Dave, Bill?
>> >
>> > Marcus
>> > --
>> > Marcus D. Hanwell, Ph.D.
>> > R&D Engineer, Kitware Inc.
>> > (518) 881-4937
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Powered by www.kitware.com
>
> Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
> http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
>
> Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://www.vtk.org/mailman/listinfo/vtk-developers
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/vtk-developers/attachments/20100629/c6c0cbb2/attachment.html>