rebase: allow a hook to refuse rebasing.

This lets a hook to interfere a rebase and help prevent certain
branches from being rebased by mistake.  A sample hook to show
how to prevent a topic branch that has already been merged into
publish branch.

Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net>

diff --git a/git-rebase.sh b/git-rebase.sh
index 16d4359..f84160d 100755 (executable)
--- a/git-rebase.sh
+++ b/git-rebase.sh
@@ -36,6 +36,15 @@ other=$(git-rev-parse --verify "$1^0") || usage
 # Make sure the branch to rebase is valid.
 head=$(git-rev-parse --verify "${2-HEAD}^0") || exit
 
+# If a hook exists, give it a chance to interrupt
+if test -x "$GIT_DIR/hooks/pre-rebase"
+then
+       "$GIT_DIR/hooks/pre-rebase" ${1+"$@"} || {
+               echo >&2 "The pre-rebase hook refused to rebase."
+               exit 1
+       }
+fi
+
 # If the branch to rebase is given, first switch to it.
 case "$#" in
 2)

diff --git a/templates/hooks--pre-rebase b/templates/hooks--pre-rebase
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..981c454
--- /dev/null
+++ b/templates/hooks--pre-rebase
@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
+#!/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".