Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add named reference to latest push cert
- Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 10:43:19 -0700
- From: Stefan Beller <sbeller@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Add named reference to latest push cert
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 2:11 AM, Shikher Verma <root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 06, 2017 at 02:31:49PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 2:39 AM, Shikher Verma <root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Currently, git only stores push certificates if there is a receive hook
>> > present. This may violate the principle of least surprise (e.g., I
>> > pushed with --signed, and I don't see anything in upstream).
>> > Additionally, push certificates could be more versatile if they are not
>> > tightly bound to git hooks. Finally, it would be useful to verify the
>> > signed pushes at later points of time with ease.
>> > A named ref is added for ease of access/tooling around push
>> > certificates. If the last push was signed, ref/PUSH_CERT stores the
>> > ref of the latest push cert otherwise it is empty.
>> > Sending patches as RFC since the documentation would have to be
>> > updated and git gc might have to be patched to not garbage collect
>> > the latest push certificate.
>> > This patch applies on master (3ec7d702a)
>> What are performance implications for busy repositories at busy hosts?
>> (think kernel.org / github) They may want to disable this new feature
>> for performance reasons or because they don't want to clutter the
>> object store. So at least a config option to turn it off would be useful.
> Any typical git push would write several objects to disk,
(or just one pack file, [which may be renamed eventually, see 722ff7f8])
> this patch
> would only add one more object per push so I think the performance
> penalty is not that high. But I agree that we can have a config to turn
> it off.
I personally do not run a high performance server, so I do not terribly mind,
but thought it would be nice for them to have at least an option ready made
instead of a potential performance regression.
>> On the ref to store the push certs:
>> (a) Currently the ref points at the blob, I wonder if we'd rather want to
>> point at a commit? (Then we can build up a history of
>> push certs, instead of relying on the reflog to show all
>> push certs. Also the gc issue might be easier to solve using this)
> I am not sure how that would work. The ref points at the blob of push
> certificate. Since each push can update multiple refs, each push
> certificate can point to mutiple commits (tip of the updated refs).
> Also if the named ref points at the commit then how will we get the
> corresponding push certificate?
> I did think about keeping a history of push certificates but the problem
> is new pushes can delete refs and commits which were pointed to by
> previous push certificates. This makes it really difficult to decide
> which push certificates to keep and which to gc. Also this history would
> be different for different clones of the same repo. Since push
> certificate are only meta data of the git workflow I think its best to
> just keep the latest push certificate and gc the old ones. People can
> use the recieve hook if they want to do advance things like logging a
> history of push certificates. I think git should provide a builtin
> solution for the simple case.
What I had in mind was what would be achieved with a
hook like this (untested):
if test -z GIT_PUSH_CERT ; then
# add a new worktree 'tmp', checking out the magic ref:
git worktree add tmp refs/PUSH_CERT
cp $GIT_PUSH_CERT tmp/cert
git -C tmp add cert
git -C tmp commit -m "new push cert"
# maybe include GIT_PUSH_CERT_[NONCE_]STATUS
# in commit message?
# clean up, command doesn't exist yet:
git worktree delete tmp
This would not deal with concurrency as it re-uses the
same worktree, but illustrates what I had in mind
for the git history of that special ref.