Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > So it seems like a reasonable goal. A more restricted approach might be > to provide a more formal hook/plugin interface. E.g., to run a hook > script with the command name and arguments, and have it return > success/failure to allow the to proceed. > > That's not quite as flexible (in your approach I could replace what > upload-pack is doing entirely, cache its output, and so on). But it > might be harder for admins to screw up. I dunno. Yeah, we usually try not to be overly flexible for that reason, but given that "git shell" is so limited that rewriting its services wholesale is not all that much of a deal, I think it is OK. I however wonder if it is worth admins' time and effort to add features to "git-shell" using this new facility, or if they are better off using something more established like gitolite once they want to go fancier beyond what the basic "git-shell" offers.
