1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
|
#!/bin/sh
#
# Copyright (c) 2006, 2008 Junio C Hamano
#
# The "pre-rebase" hook is run just before "git rebase" starts doing
# its job, and can prevent the command from running by exiting with
# non-zero status.
#
# The hook is called with the following parameters:
#
# $1 -- the upstream the series was forked from.
# $2 -- the branch being rebased (or empty when rebasing the current branch).
#
# This sample shows how to prevent topic branches that are already
# merged to 'next' branch from getting rebased, because allowing it
# would result in rebasing already published history.
publish=next
basebranch="$1"
if test "$#" = 2
then
topic="refs/heads/$2"
else
topic=`git symbolic-ref HEAD` ||
exit 0 ;# we do not interrupt rebasing detached HEAD
fi
case "$topic" in
refs/heads/??/*)
;;
*)
exit 0 ;# we do not interrupt others.
;;
esac
# Now we are dealing with a topic branch being rebased
# on top of master. Is it OK to rebase it?
# Does the topic really exist?
git show-ref -q "$topic" || {
echo >&2 "No such branch $topic"
exit 1
}
# Is topic fully merged to master?
not_in_master=`git rev-list --pretty=oneline ^master "$topic"`
if test -z "$not_in_master"
then
echo >&2 "$topic is fully merged to master; better remove it."
exit 1 ;# we could allow it, but there is no point.
fi
# Is topic ever merged to next? If so you should not be rebasing it.
only_next_1=`git rev-list ^master "^$topic" ${publish} | sort`
only_next_2=`git rev-list ^master ${publish} | sort`
if test "$only_next_1" = "$only_next_2"
then
not_in_topic=`git rev-list "^$topic" master`
if test -z "$not_in_topic"
then
echo >&2 "$topic is already up-to-date with master"
exit 1 ;# we could allow it, but there is no point.
else
exit 0
fi
else
not_in_next=`git rev-list --pretty=oneline ^${publish} "$topic"`
@PERL_PATH@ -e '
my $topic = $ARGV[0];
my $msg = "* $topic has commits already merged to public branch:\n";
my (%not_in_next) = map {
/^([0-9a-f]+) /;
($1 => 1);
} split(/\n/, $ARGV[1]);
for my $elem (map {
/^([0-9a-f]+) (.*)$/;
[$1 => $2];
} split(/\n/, $ARGV[2])) {
if (!exists $not_in_next{$elem->[0]}) {
if ($msg) {
print STDERR $msg;
undef $msg;
}
print STDERR " $elem->[1]\n";
}
}
' "$topic" "$not_in_next" "$not_in_master"
exit 1
fi
<<\DOC_END
This sample hook safeguards topic branches that have been
published from being rewound.
The workflow assumed here is:
* Once a topic branch forks from "master", "master" is never
merged into it again (either directly or indirectly).
* Once a topic branch is fully cooked and merged into "master",
it is deleted. If you need to build on top of it to correct
earlier mistakes, a new topic branch is created by forking at
the tip of the "master". This is not strictly necessary, but
it makes it easier to keep your history simple.
* Whenever you need to test or publish your changes to topic
branches, merge them into "next" branch.
The script, being an example, hardcodes the publish branch name
to be "next", but it is trivial to make it configurable via
$GIT_DIR/config mechanism.
With this workflow, you would want to know:
(1) ... if a topic branch has ever been merged to "next". Young
topic branches can have stupid mistakes you would rather
clean up before publishing, and things that have not been
merged into other branches can be easily rebased without
affecting other people. But once it is published, you would
not want to rewind it.
(2) ... if a topic branch has been fully merged to "master".
Then you can delete it. More importantly, you should not
build on top of it -- other people may already want to
change things related to the topic as patches against your
"master", so if you need further changes, it is better to
fork the topic (perhaps with the same name) afresh from the
tip of "master".
Let's look at this example:
o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o "next"
/ / / /
/ a---a---b A / /
/ / / /
/ / c---c---c---c B /
/ / / \ /
/ / / b---b C \ /
/ / / / \ /
---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o---o "master"
A, B and C are topic branches.
* A has one fix since it was merged up to "next".
* B has finished. It has been fully merged up to "master" and "next",
and is ready to be deleted.
* C has not merged to "next" at all.
We would want to allow C to be rebased, refuse A, and encourage
B to be deleted.
To compute (1):
git rev-list ^master ^topic next
git rev-list ^master next
if these match, topic has not merged in next at all.
To compute (2):
git rev-list master..topic
if this is empty, it is fully merged to "master".
DOC_END
|
