Re: git: how to figure out with a script what the last commit on remote repo is without fetching it
Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 10:43 PM, lee <lee@yun.yagibdah.de> wrote:
>> Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> 2014/09/14 6:55 "lee" <lee@ <lee@yun.yagibdah.de>yun.yagibdah.de
>>> <lee@yun.yagibdah.de>>:
>>>>
>>>> Joel Rees <joel.rees <joel.rees@gmail.com>@ <joel.rees@gmail.com>gmail.com
>>> <joel.rees@gmail.com>> writes:
>>>
>>> I can't think of any reason it would be dependent on https connectivity.
>>> Any way you can reach the repository should allow scripted query, thus
>>> checking by a cron job.
>>
>> Oh I don't think it's limited; the problem is to figure out how to use
>> other protocols like git to get the information.
>
> Hmm. So. When you do a
>
> git status
>
> on the command line, with the current working directory at the
> appropriate place in the repostory, you have taken the trouble to
> specify your repository as something like
>
> http://git.code.sf.net/p/asm68c/code
>
> instead of
>
> git://git.code.sf.net/p/asm68c/code
>
> ?
In one case, I cloned it; in another, I don't know anymore what exactly
I did.
> I think git is the usual/default protocol when you clone a repository.
I don't know --- look at an arbitrary repo on github, and you'll find
yourself presented with an http URL to clone it. Look at the emacs
git-repo, and you're presented a git URL to clone it.
Whether that means that all repos are accessible through http _and_ git,
I don't know.
> Or do you mean that you are using a web browser to browse and observe
> the repository?
Yes and no. With one of the repos, it's convenient to use a web browser
to look at the change log because it's presented on the web site. To
figure out if there have been changes, I'd have to look at the web
site.
In the other case, I'm not looking at a web site.
In any of the cases, I'm *not* being informed about new commits. I need
to look for them one way or another, and I'd rather get an email that
informs me automatically.
> If so,suddenly your questions make sense, sort of.
> Except I then want to know why you want to access the repository, if
> you aren't doing things that involve the whole tree, or perhaps
> sub-sections of the tree.
On of the repos is an upstream repo to my fork, so I pull from it from
time to time. The other one is the emacs repo, and I haven't made a
fork of it. I just pull from it from time to time to keep my emacs
version up to date --- and I have made a modification to hilock.el of
which I hope might be integrated plus a minor modification to one of the
files written in C. That can make things a bit more complicated than
simply pulling every now and then.
All of this may involve the whole tree or not, depending on what has
changed. What does it matter?
>> With polling, these 50k users each connecting three times a day makes
>> 150k connections to the git server. The git server would have to be
>> able to completely handle each connection within 0.576 seconds, and it
>> might become unreachable during spikes.
>
> Well, yeah, that's one of the reasons the hooks have been provided.
> But most repositories don't have that kind of traffic.
Probably not --- we'd have to ask the developers of git why such an
important feature is missing.
> And you should also consider that, with git, the assumption is that
> everyone is mostly working on their own clone of the repository,
> sometimes doing diffs and so-forth with other developers'
> repositories, and only occasionally going to a central repository.
How would that work, or why would they make a copy at some point in
time, work totally isolated on that for a year or for many years and
only then look at a central repo eventually? That doesn't make any
sense to me.
Git is supposed to be a tool for collaboration, isn't it? People
working together on something would probably have a hard time to
collaborate through isolating themselves by not keeping track of a
central repo or by not keeping track of everyone elses repo.
Once someone pushes to the central repo (or their own), everyone else
may want to have the latest version and thus needs to pull --- or they
decide to wait when looking at the change log. How does everyone get
informed about new commits (when a hook that sends out an email isn't
used)?
Everyone would have to track the centralised repo, or various repos, by
manually using a web browser or some other manual means to see what's
going on. It's stupid when you have to do that.
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Reply to: