#!/bin/sh # # Copyright (c) 2006 Junio C Hamano # publish=next basebranch="$1" if test "$#" = 2 then topic="refs/heads/$2" else topic=`git symbolic-ref HEAD` fi case "$basebranch,$topic" in master,refs/heads/??/*) ;; *) exit 0 ;# we do not interrupt others. ;; esac # Now we are dealing with a topic branch being rebased # on top of master. Is it OK to rebase it? # Is topic fully merged to master? not_in_master=`git-rev-list --pretty=oneline ^master "$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 -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 exit 0 ################################################################ 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".